The Romance of Norwalk

“They, the natural growthers, think because it may be possible to go out upon the waters for a few hours in the 24, when the tide serves, and dig a half peck of shell fish, that it is sufficient reason why such land should not be leased by the state to private planters. It might as well be said that it is wrong for the government to grant homestead farms to settlers, because a few blackberries might be plucked upon the lands by any one who cared to look for them.” Years later, in 1928, the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries recom¬ mended “in every instance, the leasing of all oyster bot¬ toms and especially the natural beds to private enterprises.” The report was made by Herbert Prytherch of the Bureau. About this time, the Connecticut Shell Fish Commission re¬ ported that the income from the natural bed licenses for the past few years had been: 1923, $1690; 1924, $945; 1925, $1150; 1926, $1285; 1927, $680; 1928, $295. The number of licensed boats on the natural beds in the state dwindled from 300 in 1883, 1884 and 1885, to nine in 1928. INDUSTRIAL WASTE EVILS After 1900 oyster sets in this region became generally light and scattering until 19 11 when an excellent set was obtained. In 1914 there was another good set, but for several years thereafter nothing worth mentioning. Poor sets or none at all were the verdict for several years there¬ after. Fair sets were noted in 1925 and 1926. There was no set in 1927. The year 1928 produced set which was fairly general on inshore areas where preparations had been made by the growers in cleaning the beds of old oyster shells and oyster enemies and by the planting of oysters to produce spawn. In 1929 there was practically nothing in the way of a set in Norwalk waters. Industrial waste has done much in the past years to kill oyster life in the river and harbor beds not only in Norwalk, 36 o ROMANCE OF NORWALK but all along the Connecticut coast. In 1920, the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries in a series of tests discovered that in Connecticut harbors there are a large number of trade wastes which spell death to the oyster. Copper, even in the very smallest amounts is a serious menace to the oyster in¬ dustry especially to the seed production, according to the Bureau, while other harmful substances are zinc, lead, strong acids and logwood. In 1923, the Bureau stated that in order to restore the Connecticut oyster industry to its former pros¬ perity, it would be necessary among other things to control the discharge of all harmful trade wastes. In this same report the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries advised, for the res¬ toration of the state industry, that growers keep such of the inshore grounds as were at all satisfactory, well stocked with oysters, and turn the rest of their attention to the spawning of Sound or offshore oysters. At the time the state of Connecticut was making feeble attempts to restock its natural beds and to help in the restocking of depleted private beds, inshore. The miserable way in which the state fell down on its job is revealed in the biennial report of the Connecticut Shell Fish Commission, 1925-26. At that time the commission was comprised of Captain Frederick F. Lovejoy, 41 Second st., this city; Howard W. Beach of New Haven, and Charles B. Marsh of Easton. The commissioners set forth that in their opinion the re¬ peated failure of sets was due principally to the “depletion of certain shallow waters where there were formerly im¬ mense quantities of spawning or parent oysters. The small amounts appropriated by the state were entirely inadequate to attempt the restoration of these areas but served rather merely to point out the way by which it might be ac¬ complished. Had substantial appropriation been1 available for the past five or six years, the commissioners continued, appropriations which were requested only after long and careful investigations, a much greater prosperity could now be reported; and a prompt and attentive consideration of the whole subject, tending toward the deliberate and creative OYSTER INDUSTRY 361 restoration of this once magnificent natural industry, could have been, or even now might still become, the pride of the entire state. OYSTER BAN IN 1 924 Norwalk people will remember how in the year 1924 an oyster scare swept the country when it was whispered that the bivalves carried typhoid germs, and scarcely anyone had the courage to eat oysters for nearly a year. The scare was due to typhoid outbreaks in Chicago, New York and Washington, D. C., attributed to a certain brand of oysters sent out over the country by a New York shipper. No one knew from just where the oysters originally came but the consumers weren’t taking any chances. They just didn’t buy any. In Norwalk, during that year, oyster sales were pitifully low; housewives refused to use their home produce; the restaurants crossed the dish off their menus completely. Growers became panic stricken. They wanted desperately to restore the market, partly to reassure themselves and all others of the purity of the product at all times, and partly because many of them were descending into straitened financial circumstances. They decided to ask the Surgeon General of the United States Public Health Service to call a conference in order to plan what should be done. February 19, 1925, the con¬ ference was called in Washington, D. C. It was attended by officers of the U. S. Public Health Service, the U. S. Bureau of Chemistry, the U. S. Bureau of Fisheries, by state and municipal health authorities, by state conservation commissions, and by representatives of the shellfish industry from all along the coast. Out of this conference grew a general committee which announced itself as being organized for the “Sanitary Control of the Shell Fish Industry of the United States.” Connecticut was represented at the time on the committee by Dr. Stanley H. Osborn, commissioner 362 ROMANCE OF NORWALK of the state department of health, and by Howard W. Beach, chairman of the state Shell Fish Commission. The new national General Committee on September 28, 1925, offered the following recommendations: 1. The scientific analysis of the shell fish beds with re¬ striction of marketing from doubtful areas. 2. Sanitary handling, storage and distribution, including health certif¬ icates for oyster openers. 3. Compulsory tagging or re¬ cording of each lot or shipment whereby it may readily be traced to its original source. Meanwhile, the state of Connecticut had been roused to action. The board of health, following the oyster scare of 1924, became much more thorough in its investigations of fit oyster grounds and found it necessary to restrict certain areas for market purposes. The Sanitary Code for the use of oyster growers in Norwalk and other coastal cities and towns, as approved by the Connecticut Public Health Coun¬ cil, March 16, 1925, and supplemented August 2, 1925, contained a number of regulations for growing, handling and selling oysters, among which was: Each grower and each wholesale distributor of shell fish must furnish with each shipment, a record of the source of supply, or the certif¬ icate number of the area from which it was taken. Three certificates are being issued by the state Department of Health; one certifying oyster beds after analytical examina¬ tion; one for shucking houses after personal inspection, and one for shell oysters. The last two are filed with the U. S. Public Health Service for a record available to other states. During the years, 1925 and 1926, local growers made plans to engage bacteriologists and chemists at their own expense in order to promote the general welfare of the industry and to prove to the public, the purity of their product. SEWAGE POLLUTION The appalling losses which Norwalk in conjunction with other towns and cities in the state suffered in the oyster busi- OYSTER INDUSTRY 363 ness through the pollution of the Sound waters, caused by domestic and factory wastes, is set forth in the Biennial Re¬ port of the Shell Fish Commissioners of Connecticut, 1927- 1928. The commissioners, Howard Beach of New Haven, Charles Marsh of Easton and William Lewis of Bridge¬ port said: “This commission has often called attention to the increas¬ ing loss to our industry by domestic and factory wastes. Connecticut has now ceased to produce oysters for the con¬ sumer market in any quantity of economic importance. Such packers as still exist are obliged to have large holdings in Long Island or Rhode Island and so must carry our Con¬ necticut oysters to other states in order to mature them for market. Some of the oldest and best known growers have ceased altogether to produce oysters for direct retail trade, but are producing only for sale to planters in other states. In this way, over 50 per cent of the gross income of the business is lost to the Connecticut industry and to other home interests. For example, in New Haven harbor from the Breakwaters to Tomlinson Bridge there are approxi¬ mately 5,900 acres of suitable ground, a large part of which was formerly used for maturing oysters. “Today, this entire area is embargoed by the Board of Health for growing oysters for direct sale to the consumer. An accurate record of 50 acres of this territory shows that for the ten year period, 1905 to 1914 inclusive, a total of 677,372 bushels of oysters were planted, which is an average of 1,335 bushels per year per acre. A modest estimate of 50 per cent increase by growth would yield on this basis about 2,000 bushels which at the present market price of $2.50 would mean an annual production of $5,000 per acre. Compare this with upland produce and then realize how tremendous is the loss to the whole industry of the state by the continual pollution of our harbors and inshore waters.” The year 1929 finds the Norwalk oyster industry in a very sad condition as the result of pollution in the harbor waters. At the present time, by order of the State Board ROMANCE OF NORWALK 364