Chapter X: Introduction (5)

─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────── City │ STREET SPRINKLING ├────────────────────┬─────────────┬────────── │ Method of │Total Gallons│ Average │Assessment. Who Pays│ Used a Year │ Rate of │ for Street │ for │Assessment │ Intersections? │ Sprinkling │ per Foot │ │ │Front for │ │ │Sprinkling ─────────────┼────────────────────┼─────────────┼────────── Buffalo │No charge for │ 7,500,000│ 10¢ │ intersections. │ │ Beacon │ │ │ Binghamton │ │ │ Cincinnati │ │ │ Cambridge │4¢. front foot each │ 15,000,000│ 4¢. │ side; │ │ │ intersections │ │ │ sections not │ │ │ counted. │ │ Chicago │ │ │ Camden │ │ │ Columbus │ │ │ Cleveland │ │ │ Cortland │City pays for │ 6,470│ 5¢. │ intersections. │ │ Dunkirk │ │ │ Denver │ │ 311,364,000│ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Elmira │ │ │ Fall River │Intersections paid │ 4,403,200│ 2¢. │ by city. │ │ Grand Rapids │ │ 117,821,750│ Hudson │ │ │ Jamestown │ │ │ Kansas City │ │ │ Kingston │ │ │ Los Angeles │ │ 40,000 tanks│ │ │ per month,│ │ │each tank 550│ │ │ gallons.│ Louisville │City pays for │ │ 5.5¢. │ intersections.[16]│ │ Lowell │No pay for │ │ 5¢. │ intersections. │ │ Lynn │per foot front in │ │ │ residential; 8¢. │ │ │ in business. │ │ Lackawanna │ │ │ Little Falls │ │ │ │ │ │ Milwaukee │Assessed to property│ │ 1.6¢.[18] │ owners. │ │ Middletown │City pays for │ │ │ intersections ½c. │ │ │ per front foot per│ │ │ week. │ │ Mechanicville│ │ 8,000,000│ New York City│ │ │ New Orleans │ │ │ New Bedford │ │ │ Newark │ │ │ Norwich │ │ │ 3¢. New Rochelle │ │ 1,100,509│ Niagara Falls│ │ │ Newburgh │ │ │ Oakland │ │ 10,197,400│ │ │ Cu. Ft.│ Oswego │ │ │ Ogdensburg │ │ │ Philadelphia │ │ │ Providence │ │ │ Rochester │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rensselaer │ │ │ Reading │ │ │ Richmond │ │ │ St. Louis │Special tax 4¢. per │1,727,362,500│ 4¢. │ foot front. │ │ San Francisco│ │ │ Salt Lake │ │ │ City │ │ │ Springfield │ │ │ │ │ │ Seattle │ │ │ Scranton │ │ │ Troy │ │ │ Utica │ │ │ Washington │ │ │ ─────────────┴────────────────────┴─────────────┴──────────

─────────────┬───────────────────────────── City │ STREET SPRINKLING ├─────────────┬─────────────── │ Does This │Do Corporations │Include Cost │ Sprinkle │ of Water or │ Streets on │is Water Non-│ Which the │ assessable? │ Trolley Cars │ │ Run? ─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────── Buffalo │Yes. │On two streets. │ │ Beacon │ │ Binghamton │ │ Cincinnati │ │ Cambridge │No. │No. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Chicago │ │ Camden │ │ Columbus │ │ Cleveland │ │ Cortland │Yes. │No. │ │ Dunkirk │ │ Denver │City pays $25│No. │ a year for │ │ hydrant for│ │ all │ │ purposes. │ Elmira │ │No. Fall River │Non- │No. │ assessable.│ Grand Rapids │ │Yes. Hudson │ │ Jamestown │ │ Kansas City │ │ Kingston │ │ Los Angeles │ │No. │ │ │ │ │ │ Louisville │Yes. │No. │ │ Lowell │No cost. │No. │ │ Lynn │ │ │ │ │ │ Lackawanna │ │ Little Falls │Non- │No. │ assessable.│ Milwaukee │Non- │ │ assessable.│ Middletown │Non- │No. │ assessable.│ │ │ │ │ Mechanicville│ │No. New York City│ │ New Orleans │ │ New Bedford │ │ [19] Newark │ │ Norwich │Yes. │No. New Rochelle │ │Yes. Niagara Falls│ │Yes. Newburgh │ │ Oakland │ │Few cases. │ │ Oswego │ │No. Ogdensburg │ │No. Philadelphia │ │No. Providence │ │ Rochester │ │Pays │ │ proportionate │ │ cost. Rensselaer │ │ Reading │ │ Richmond │ │ St. Louis │Non- │ │ assessable.│ San Francisco│ │At times. Salt Lake │ │ City │ │ Springfield │Yes. │Yes, $100 a │ │ mile. Seattle │ │Yes.[20] Scranton │ │ Troy │ │No. Utica │ │ Washington │ │ ─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────

Table I (j)

STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)

─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────── City │ COST DATA ─────────────┼─────────┬────────────┬────────────┬───────────── │ Street │ Yearly │ Total Cost │Salaries and │Cleaning │ Contract │ of Street │ Wages │ Done by │ Price │ Cleaning │ │ City or │ │ Year, │ │Contract │ │Exclusive of│ │ │ │Snow Removal│ ─────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼────────────┼───────────── Buffalo │City. │ │ $146,517.43│ $84,499.70 Beacon │City. │ │ │ Binghamton │City. │ │ │ Cincinnati │City. │ │ 186,847.17│ Cambridge │City. │ │ 59,300.00│ 47,500.00 Chicago │City. │ │ │ Camden │City. │ │ 26,056.80│ Columbus │City. │ │ 126,897.19│ 94,180.68 │ │ │ │ Cleveland │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Cortland │City. │ │ 31,000.00│ Dunkirk │Contract.│ 2.8¢. per│ │ │ │ Sq. Yd per│ │ │ │ season.│ │ Denver │City. │ │ 108,296.60│ │ │ │ │ Elmira │City. │ │ 11,748.20│ 10,047.18 Fall River │City. │ │ 53,867.80│ Grand Rapids │City. │ │ │ Hudson │City. │ │ 1,400.00│ Jamestown │City. │ │ 5,638.70│ 3,983.67 Kansas City │City. │ │ 200,000.00│ 170,000.00 Kingston │City. │ │ 9,500.00│ 9,300.00 Los Angeles │City. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Louisville │City. │ │ 80,819.80│ Lowell │City. │ │ │ Lynn │City. │ │ 29,298.85│ Lackawanna │City. │ │ │ Little Falls │City. │ │ │ Milwaukee │City. │ │ 238,335.00│ │ │ │ including│ │ │ │ sprinkling.│ Middletown │City. │ │ 3,975.65│ New York City│City. │ │7,643,936.74│ 5,380,620.63 New Orleans │City. │ │ 322,000.00│ New Bedford │City. │ │ 60,478.81│ Newark │City. │ │ 268,732.54│ 237,213.15 Norwich │City. │ │ │ New Rochelle │City. │ │ 37,665.71│ 34,974.67 Niagara Falls│City. │ │ 118,000.00│ Newburgh │City. │ │ 9,000.00│ Oakland │Both. │ $44,663.44│ 74,951.32│25.969.25[25] Oswego │City. │ │ 4,231.41│ 3,226.01 Ogdensburg │City. │ │ 4,428.66│ Philadelphia │Contract.│1,232.847.00│ │ Providence │City. │ │ │ Rochester │City. │ │ 183,783.44│ Rensselaer │City. │ │ 2,740.00│ Reading │Contract.│ Three year│ │ │ │basis $12.90│ │ │ │ per city│ │ │ │ square,│ │ │ │ length 540│ │ │ │ ft. $35,000│ │ │ │ a year.│ │ Richmond │City. │ │ Not│ │ │ │ separated│ │ │ │from garbage│ │ │ │ and ash│ │ │ │ collection.│ St. Louis │City. │ │ 527,000.00│ │ │ │ │ San Francisco│City. │ │ 350,400.00│ Salt Lake │City. │ │ │ City │ │ │ │ Springfield │City. │ │ 243,952.86│ Seattle │City. │ │ 148,456.56│ Scranton │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Troy │City. │ │ │ Utica │City. │ │ │ Washington │City. │ │ 264,869.70│ ─────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴────────────┴─────────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────── City │ COST DATA ─────────────┼──────────┬───────────┬───────────┬──────────┬────────── │ New │Repairs and│ Other │ Cost per │ Average │Appliances│Maintenance│ Expenses │1,000 Sq. │ Cost per │ │ of │ │ Yds. │Sq. Yd. of │ │Appliances │ │ Street │ Hand │ │ │ │ Cleaning │ Sweeping │ │ │ │ Done │ ─────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼───────────┼──────────┼────────── Buffalo │$17,233.42│ $44,784.41│ │ 28¢.│ 30¢. Beacon │ │ │ │ │ Binghamton │ │ │ │ │ Cincinnati │ │ │ │ .00035│ Cambridge │ 500.00│ 300.00│ $11,000.00│ │ Chicago │ │ │ │ │ Camden │ │ 238.09│ │ │ Columbus │ │ │ │ │ .388¢. │ │ │ │ │ Cleveland │ │ │ │ │.42786 per │ │ │ │ │ Gr. Sq. Cortland │ │ │ │ │ Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Denver │ │ │ │ One-sixth│ 15–100 of │ │ │ │of a mill.│ a mill. Elmira │ 1,000.00│ 711.52│ │ 0.397│ 0.321 Fall River │ │ │ │ │ Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │ Hudson │ │ │ │ │ Jamestown │ │ 1,655.03│ │ │ .1464¢. Kansas City │ │ 30.000.00│ │ │ Kingston │ 100.00│ 50.00│ 50.00│ │ Los Angeles │ │ │ │ │ .069 to │ │ │ │ │ .285 per │ │ │ │ │ day.[23] Louisville │ │ │ │ │ Lowell │ │ │ │ │ Lynn │ │ │ │ │ Lackawanna │ │ │ │ │ Little Falls │ │ │ │ │ Milwaukee │ │ │ │ │ 26.2¢- │ │ │ │ │35.3¢.[23] │ │ │ │ │ Middletown │ │ │ │ │ New York City│ │ │ │ │ New Orleans │ │ │ │ │ New Bedford │ │ │ │ │ Newark │ │ │ │ │ Norwich │ │ │ │ │ New Rochelle │ │ 2,245.79│ 445.25│ 26¢.│ .027¢. Niagara Falls│ │ 20,000.00│ 10,000.00│ │ Newburgh │ │ │ │ │ Oakland │ │ 436.75│3881.88[25]│.00366[26]│ .201[23] Oswego │ 517.79│ 457.61│ │ │ Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │ Philadelphia │ │ │ │ │ 17.8¢[23] Providence │ │ │ │ │ Rochester │ │ │ │ │ Rensselaer │ │ │ │ │ Reading │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Richmond │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ St. Louis │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ San Francisco│ 6,000.00│ │ │ │ Salt Lake │ │ │ │ │ City │ │ │ │ │ Springfield │ │ │ │ │ .00035 Seattle │ │ │ │ │ Scranton │ │ │ │ │ 17 to │ │ │ │ │ 35¢.[23] Troy │ │ │ │ │ Utica │ │ │ │ │ Washington │ │ │ │ │$ .156[23] ─────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴───────────┴──────────┴──────────

─────────────┬───────────────────────────── City │ COST DATA ├─────────────┬─────────────── │Average Cost │ Average Cost │ per Sq. Yd. │per Sq. Yd. of │ of Machine │Squeegeeing[21] │Flushing[21] │ │ │ │ │ ─────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────── Buffalo │ │ Beacon │ │ Binghamton │ │ Cincinnati │ │ Cambridge │ │ Chicago │ │ Camden │ │ Columbus │ .617 per Gr.│ │ Sq.[22]│ Cleveland │ .15388 per│ │ Gr. Sq.[22]│ Cortland │ │ Dunkirk │ │ │ │ │ │ Denver │ 13–100 of a│ │ mill.│ Elmira │ 0.0815│ Fall River │ │ Grand Rapids │.0385[23][24]│ Hudson │ │ Jamestown │ │ Kansas City │ │ Kingston │ │ Los Angeles │ .16 to│ │ .21[23]│ │ │ Louisville │ │ Lowell │ │ Lynn │ │ Lackawanna │ │ Little Falls │ │ Milwaukee │ 25.5¢.[23]│ │ │ │ │ Middletown │ │ New York City│ │ New Orleans │ │ New Bedford │ │ Newark │ │ Norwich │ │ New Rochelle │ │ Niagara Falls│ │ Newburgh │ │ Oakland │ │ Oswego │ │ Ogdensburg │ │ Philadelphia │ 16¢.[23]│ 18¢.[23] Providence │ │ Rochester │ │ Rensselaer │ │ Reading │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Richmond │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ St. Louis │ 1.25 per Gr.│ 92¢. per Gr. │ Sq.│ Sq. San Francisco│ │ Salt Lake │ │ City │ │ Springfield │ │ .00017 Seattle │ │ Scranton │ 18¢.[23][22]│ │ │ Troy │ │ Utica │ │ Washington │ $.262[23]│ .150[23] ─────────────┴─────────────┴───────────────

Table I (k)

STREET CLEANING IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)

─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────┬─────────────
City │ Preventive Work │ Any Unusual
│ │ Conditions
│ │ with Which
│ │ Your
│ │ Department
│ │ Has to
│ │ Contend?
├────────────────┬──────────┬───────────┤
│What Effort, If │Is Cost of│ Do Police │
│ Any, Made to │ Cleaning │and Health │
│ Secure │Considered│Departments│
│ Cooperation of │ in │and Courts │
│Public to Reduce│Selecting │Cooperate? │
│ Street Litter? │ Kind of │ │
│ │Pavement? │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼────────────────┼──────────┼───────────┼─────────────
Buffalo │By ordinance. │No. │Yes. │None.
Beacon │Waste cans. │No. │Yes. │No.
Binghamton │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │Through press │No. │Yes. │Land slides
│ and clean-up │ │ │ and floods.
│ campaigns. │ │ │
Cambridge │Clean-up Week. │No. │Yes. │No.
Chicago │ │ │Yes. │
Camden │Education │ │ │
│ campaign │ │ │
│ cooperating │ │ │
│ with civic │ │ │
│ organizations.│ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │
Cleveland │ │ │ │
Cortland │ │No. │Some. │Some lanes in
│ │ │ │ rear of
│ │ │ │ stores used
│ │ │ │ for dumping
│ │ │ │ papers.
Dunkirk │ │ │ │
Denver │ │ │ │
Elmira │Waste cans used.│Not much. │Yes. │No.
Fall River │No. │No. │No. │No.
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │
Hudson │ │Yes. │Yes. │Existence of
│ │ │ │ alleys.
Jamestown │ │ │ │City very
│ │ │ │ hilly.
Kansas City │Superintendent │No. │Yes. │No.
│ arrests │ │ │
│ violators. │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │ │
Louisville │Yes. │ │Yes. │
Lowell │ │Yes. │Very │
│ │ │ little. │
Lynn │ │ │No. │Papers from
│ │ │ │ refuse
│ │ │ │ collectors.
Lackawanna │Clean-up │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ campaign. │ │ │
Little Falls │None. │To some │No. │
│ │ extent. │ │
Milwaukee │Publicity and │ │Yes. │No.
│ circulars. │ │ │
Middletown │Placed cans for │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ paper. Through│ │ │
│ press. │ │ │
Mechanicville│Police │ │Yes. │No.
│ department and│ │ │
│ waste cans. │ │ │
New York City│Anti-litter │ │Yes. │Construction
│ League │ │ │ work; push
│ Educational │ │ │ carts.
│ work. │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │
Newark │Police │No. │Yes. │No.
│ department and│ │ │
│ public │ │ │
│ schools. │ │ │
Norwich │Very little. │No. │No. │No.
New Rochelle │Yes, by │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ ordinance. │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Placing waste │Yes. │Yes. │No.
│ cans. │ │ │
Newburgh │Through press, │ │ │
│ cans provided,│ │ │
│ hand-bills │ │ │
│ distributed in│ │ │
│ business │ │ │
│ section. │ │ │
Oakland │Distribute │Yes. │Only in │None.
│ cards, │ │ extreme │
│ enforcements │ │ cases. │
│ of ordinance │ │ │
│ prohibiting │ │ │
│ dumping of │ │ │
│ refuse in │ │ │
│ streets. │ │ │
Oswego │Use waste cans. │ │ │No city
│ │ │ │ garbage or
│ │ │ │ ash
│ │ │ │ collection;
│ │ │ │ people dump
│ │ │ │ on back
│ │ │ │ streets.
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │Pamphlets │In general│To some │Overloaded
│ distributed. │ way. │ extent. │ wagons,
│ Rubbish cards │ │ │ storekeeper
│ distributed, │ │ │ sweeping
│ lectures to │ │ │ dust into
│ school │ │ │ street.
│ children. │ │ │
│ Place waste │ │ │
│ cans. │ │ │
Providence │ │ │Yes. │
│ │ │ │
Rochester │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │ │No. │Yes. │No.
Reading │ │ │ │
Richmond │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
St. Louis │Placing metal │Yes. │ │
│ refuse boxes │ │ │
│ on sidewalk. │ │ │
San Francisco│Place dirt cans │ │Yes. │
│ and paper │ │ │
│ cans. │ │ │
Salt Lake │Enforcement of │ │Yes. │
City │ ordinances. │ │ │
Springfield │ │ │ │
Seattle │Through the │ │Yes. │Many hills.
│ press. │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │
Washington │Placing waste │No. │Yes. │
│ paper boxes, │ │ │
│ police │ │ │
│ regulation. │ │ │
─────────────┴────────────────┴──────────┴───────────┴─────────────

─────────────┬───────────────────
City │Disposal of Sweepings
│
│
│
│
│
│
├─────────┬─────────
│ Average │ Average
│ No. of │Amount of
│Cu. Yds. │Sweepings
│ of │Collected
│Sweepings│ at Each
│per 1,000│Cleaning
│Sq. Yds. │
│ of Area │
│ Cleaned │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┼─────────┼─────────
Buffalo │ │
Beacon │ │
Binghamton │ │
Cincinnati │ .24│ Yes.
│ │
│ │
Cambridge │ │ Yes.
Chicago │ .079│ .079
Camden │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Columbus │ │
Cleveland │ │
Cortland │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Dunkirk │ │
Denver │ │
Elmira │ │
Fall River │ │
Grand Rapids │ │
Hudson │½ cu. yd.│
│ │
Jamestown │ .053│
│ │
Kansas City │ │
│ │
│ │
Kingston │ │
Los Angeles │ │
Louisville │ │
Lowell │ │
│ │
Lynn │ │
│ │
│ │
Lackawanna │ │
│ │
Little Falls │ │
│ │
Milwaukee │ │
│ │
Middletown │ │
│ │
│ │
Mechanicville│ │
│ │
│ │
New York City│ 28.6 per│ .029 cu.
│ yr.│ yds.
│ │
│ │
New Orleans │ │ Yes.
New Bedford │ │
Newark │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Norwich │ │
New Rochelle │ 119 cu.│
│ yds.│
Niagara Falls│ │
│ │
Newburgh │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Oakland │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Oswego │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Ogdensburg │ │
Philadelphia │ .17│ .23 cu.
│ │ yds.
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
Providence │ │
│ │
Rochester │ │
Rensselaer │ │
Reading │ │
Richmond │ │
│ │
St. Louis │ │
│ │
│ │
San Francisco│ │
│ │
│ │
Salt Lake │ │
City │ │
Springfield │ │
Seattle │ │
│ │
Scranton │ │
Troy │ │
Utica │ │
Washington │ │
│ │
│ │
│ │
─────────────┴─────────┴─────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────
City │Disposal of Sweepings
│
│
│
│
│
│
├──────────────────────────────────────────
│ Method of Disposal
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
│
├────┬──────┬──────────┬──────────┬────────
│ On │ Used │ Sold for │ Price │ Total
│City│ for │Fertilizer│ Charged │ Yearly
│Dump│Filler│ │ │Receipts
─────────────┼────┼──────┼──────────┼──────────┼────────
Buffalo │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
Beacon │ │ │Yes. │Contract. │ $137.00
Binghamton │ │ │ │ │
Cincinnati │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Cambridge │ │ │ │ │
Chicago │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
Camden │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Columbus │ │ │ │ │
Cleveland │Yes.│ │ │ │
Cortland │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Dunkirk │Yes.│ │ │ │
Denver │Yes.│ │ │ │
Elmira │ │Yes. │ │ │
Fall River │Yes.│ │ │ │
Grand Rapids │ │ │ │ │
Hudson │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Jamestown │ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Kansas City │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Kingston │ │ │ │ │
Los Angeles │ │ │Yes. │ │
Louisville │Yes.│ │ │ │
Lowell │Yes.│ │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Lynn │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Lackawanna │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Little Falls │Yes.│ │Yes. │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Milwaukee │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Middletown │Yes.│ │ │30¢. for │
│ │ │ │ 1½ yds. │
│ │ │ │ │
Mechanicville│ │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New York City│ │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
New Orleans │ │ │ │ │
New Bedford │ │ │ │ │
Newark │ │Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Norwich │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
New Rochelle │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Niagara Falls│Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Newburgh │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oakland │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Oswego │Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Ogdensburg │ │ │ │ │
Philadelphia │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Providence │Yes.│Yes. │ │$2.00 per │
│ │ │ │ cord. │
Rochester │ │ │ │ │
Rensselaer │Yes.│Yes. │Yes. │No. │
Reading │ │ │ │ │
Richmond │Yes.│Yes. │Yes. │15¢. per │
│ │ │ │ load. │
St. Louis │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
San Francisco│Yes.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Salt Lake │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
City │ │ │ │ │
Springfield │Yes.│ │Yes. │No. │
Seattle │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
Scranton │ │ │ │ │
Troy │ │ │ │ │
Utica │ │ │ │ │
Washington │Yes.│Yes. │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │ │
─────────────┴────┴──────┴──────────┴──────────┴────────

NOTE: Seattle and Denver are the only cities which report that they clean their sidewalks. Denver limits its work to the business district. All cities report they do not dump sweepings in manholes. All cities except Salt Lake City and Norwich report they sprinkle streets preceding sweeping. Cambridge, San Francisco, and Springfield, Mass., are the only cities which report they do not have sprinklers precede squeegee machines.

-----

Footnote 1:

On account of favorable weather conditions and the necessity of
economising very little machine brooming is done.

Footnote 2:

One-tenth of it cleaned four times daily. Two-fifths once a day. One-
half once a week.

Footnote 3:

Flushing only.

Footnote 4:

Hand cleaning, flushing and squeegeeing.

Footnote 5:

Not including alleys.

Footnote 6:

Flushing only.

Footnote 7:

Hand and machine sweeping and flushing.

Footnote 8:

Entire year.

Footnote 9:

Sweepers patrol streets from one to ten times daily.

Footnote 10:

Also includes machine sweeping, cleaned periodically.

Footnote 11:

Also includes machine sweeping—per year.

Footnote 12:

43,341 loads in year; 85% 2 cu. yds. each and 15% 3 cu. yds. each.

Footnote 13:

Four of these on the average will be sub-foremen at $3.50, and the
other laborers at $2.50 for 8 hours. These men are also under the
supervision of four district deputies at $125 a month each. These
district deputies have many other duties.

Footnote 14:

Length of day eight hours, unless otherwise noted.

Footnote 15:

For water and oil.

Footnote 16:

.045 foot frontage for 40 foot street.

.055 foot frontage for 50 foot street.

.065 foot frontage for 60 foot street.

Footnote 17:

City also paid for water and hydrant rental $25,329.88

Footnote 18:

Based on street 30 feet wide and sprinkled twice daily for 150 days.

Footnote 19:

Railroad company furnishes electric power and use of tracks for car
sprinkler and power flusher. City pays for car.

Footnote 20:

City furnishes two men and company motormen and conductor. City owns
sprinklers.

Footnote 21:

Including 10% of cost of machinery for depreciation and repairs and
4½% interest on machinery.

Footnote 22:

Trolley car flusher.

Footnote 23:

Per 1,000 sq. yds.

Footnote 24:

Does not include depreciation and interest.

Footnote 25:

On city work only. Does not include amount paid to contractor.

Footnote 26:

Includes cleaning drains and gutters and inlets, cleaning under small
highway bridges and removing fallen trees from roadway.

Footnote 27:

One square equals 540 ft. including salaries and wages, cost of new
appliances, repairs and maintenance of appliances and all other
overhead charges.

Footnote 28:

Includes depreciation and repairs, but not general supervision.

SEWAGE DISPOSAL
EFFICIENCY OF PROCESSES USED BY AMERICAN CITIES—OPINIONS OF AUTHORITIES—
EXPERIMENTS WITH NEW METHODS.

Recognition of the necessity for the proper disposal of sewage is now quite prevalent in most American communities, whether large or small. In many sections the problem has become vital, and as the population increases, it is only a matter of time when all will be compelled to solve the problem, for its importance grows in direct proportion to the rapid increase in inhabitants. The continued concentration of population makes it increasingly difficult and expensive for a municipality to secure and maintain a pure water supply and forces community activity for protection against disease germs. It also causes the demand for the improvement of the esthetic condition of bodies of water within or near a city’s boundaries. Many states have already recognized the conditions due to these nuisances and have enacted strict legislation with a view to preventing the pollution of streams and other bodies of water, for the protection of water supplies, surface and underground, and for the elimination of disease germs accompanying sewage. States and even nations have realized that sewage disposal is more than a local problem. In every case it is an inter-community problem, in some it is inter- state and in a few the question must be settled by national governments.

Even those communities which have not already provided a proper method of disposal of their sewage know that it must be done sooner or later, and many are preparing for it either by making a preliminary study, by preparing tentative plans, by reconstructing their sewerage systems or planning new extensions with that end in view, or by shaping their financial programs so that the community will be prepared to assume the financial burden when the necessity becomes imperative.

The quantity of harmful waste produced by a community is surprisingly small in comparison with the disastrous effects it may produce. All authorities agree that in cities provided with an abundant water supply sewage contains less than one-tenth of one per cent. of foreign substances. This organic matter and the products of its decomposition the Massachusetts State Board of Health has found rarely exceed one-half of one per cent. of the sewage. George W. Fuller, consulting sanitary engineer, says that 99.9 per cent. of sewage is ordinarily pure water and that even much of the remainder is harmless matter of a mineral nature. The experience of George S. Webster, Chief Engineer of the Bureau of Surveys and of the Philadelphia Sewage Testing Station, with sewage works, indicates that on an average 1,000 persons produce per annum forty-five tons of dry sludge matter, or the solid part of the sewage after treatment; and the United States Census Bureau reports that the volume of sewage discharged daily during the year per person is 164 gallons. Yet the small amount of decomposing matter must be properly treated for it is that which gives sewage its offensive character and power to cause disease.

The proper solution of the sewage disposal problem involves first, the construction of a sewerage system that will remove the sewage from the community completely and as rapidly as possible, and secondly, the construction of a disposal plant at which the sewage can be treated in such a way that when it is discharged into the body of water it will not cause a nuisance and disease.

The Sewerage System

There are two types of sewerage systems in use, the separate and the combined. In the former the storm water is removed in one set of pipes and the domestic sewage in another. The combined system removes both in the same set of pipes. In deciding which system to adopt three factors must be first considered, the cost, the topography of the city and the method of disposal. The general conclusions of sanitary engineers at present regarding the relative merits of the two systems are that either is satisfactory from a sanitary point of view when properly constructed, that the separate system is usually best for suburban districts not closely built up and for all communities where the sanitary sewage requires treatment, and that often a combination of the two systems can be used to advantage. Most engineers point to the advantage of combined sewers in narrow streets and congested districts where only one pipe and one house connection are required.

The belief has been expressed by John H. Gregory, consulting engineer, that as a general proposition the cost of building a combined system is less than that of constructing a separate system, especially where the territory to be served is more or less closely built up and streets paved. In suburban territory, not closely built up and where storm water is easily and quickly diverted into natural water courses, he believes the separate system will in general cost less, for then only sanitary sewers need to be built first, the storm water sewers being deferred for years or only such drains constructed as are immediately required. When there are steep grades and relatively high velocity all authorities agree with Gregory that it is advisable to build combined sewers, even though the development of the territory may hardly be such as to require the removal of the storm water.

Discussing the merits of the two systems so far as they affect the cost of disposal Clark P. Collins, sanitary engineer, concludes that generally speaking “it is unwise to dilute sewage with storm water and to befoul storm water with sewage in the attempt to remove both by the same underground channel.” Gregory has expressed the opinion that if sewage is to be discharged into a body without treatment the combined system will offer the simplest and cheapest solution of the problem.

Among the principal objections to the combined system when the sewage is treated are the increase it causes in the volume of liquid which necessarily requires a larger plant and expenditure, the changes it causes in the character of the sewage which complicates operation of the plant, and the frequency with which it causes the flow of sewage to exceed the maximum of the plant, thereby making it necessary to discharge untreated sewage into the stream. With a combined system all kinds of trade wastes must be run through the disposal plant, whether they are offensive or not; automatic devices, which should be avoided whenever possible, are necessary between the combined and intercepting sewers to limit the amount of flow; a greater amount of grit is deposited at the disposal works unless in the separate system the first wash of the street is intercepted. The New York State Board of Health advocates the separate system.

In constructing, extending or reconstructing a sewerage system it is well to bear in mind that even though a city has not at present a disposal plant, the time will come in all probability when increased population will compel the treatment of its sewage by some process. It may, therefore, be more economical eventually to make present plans so that when disposal does come the sewerage system will make possible the most economical operation of the disposal works. Gregory’s conclusion as recently expressed in an address is that “other things being equal, especially as more and more attention is being given to sewage disposal, the separate system seems to offer greater advantages.”

All engineers advocate good ventilation for sewers and gradients that will develop self-cleansing velocities, so as to reduce gas trouble and to deliver the sewage as fresh as possible to the disposal works. The best practise, according to reports of the State Boards of Health, show that these velocities should be not less than two feet per second in separate systems and two and one-half feet in combined systems. In some instances where it has been necessary to reduce the gradients because of the expense of obtaining steeper ones, a velocity of one foot per second has been found to be satisfactory; but in such instances sewers must be well constructed and flushed. Most trade wastes require a higher velocity to prevent deposits.

The Degree of Purification of Sewage

Before determining the proper method of disposal the first point to be settled by a city is the degree of purification desired or needed for both the present and the future. The decision is dependent upon three factors: the self-purifying capacity of the stream or body of water into which the effluent—liquid portions of the sewage run off after treatment—is to be discharged and its utilization for water supply, bathing, etc., the character and amount of the sewage and the possible future growth not only of the city itself, but also of the communities bordering on the stream. While there have been some demands for the absolute sterilization of sewage, many sanitarians believe that any artificial method of sewage treatment will not esthetically render the final effluent fit for ingestion, and practically all authorities agree that final discharge of sewage need not be in this perfect condition. This seems to be based on logical reasoning when one considers that all waterways are necessarily polluted to some extent. John Duncan Watson, of Birmingham, England, contends that the complete elimination of bacteria is prohibitive inasmuch as it is beyond the limits of the reasonable demands on the purse. Robert Spurr Weston, member of the American Society of Civil Engineers, at one time reminded an audience that the proper place to protect the water consumers against disease is at the water works and not at the sewage disposal plant. Authorities are in general agreed that sewage should be disposed of as the stream demands, and that local conditions should determine degree of purification required. Standards of purity have been studied by many societies and various suggestions have been made. All agree that the sewage after treatment should not deteriorate the stream into which it flows. Watson advocates under certain conditions an effluent that will not putrefy on being kept for seven days at a uniform temperature of 80 degrees F. and that does not contain more than three parts per 100,000 of suspended solid matter.

Generally speaking the suspended matter should be removed, the conditions near the point of discharge be inoffensive and the water be not impaired for purposes of manufacture and pleasure. When a city is located on the seashore or near a large lake or stream the screening out of the heavy particles before the sewage is discharged together with dilution will prevent active decomposition and putrefaction of the sewage the body of water receives and the esthetic senses of the community will not be offended. On small bodies of water and when the water is used for drinking and manufacturing purposes or for bathing or shellfish the conditions usually demand not only a non-putrescible effluent but also one that is free from harmful bacteria or one that is highly purified like that from sand filters.

There seems to be a general agreement among sanitary engineers that the condition of the river below where the effluent joins it is a safe guide and should be the ruling factor in determining the degree of purification desirable. Authorities, however, are not agreed as to whether the standard of cleanliness should be based solely on chemical analysis or on a mixed standard taking into consideration the appearance of the water and its physical, chemical and bacterial conditions, as has been demonstrated by the Metropolitan Sewage Commission of New York. One expert in answer to the question propounded by the Commission based the standard solely on chemical analysis, but none of those whose views were sought was willing to accept the dissolved oxygen test as an all sufficient criterion of the condition of the water. One considered that the oxygen should be regarded as a reliable index of the cleanliness of the water only when dealing with the condition of gross pollution and only when in conjunction with observations of the appearance and physical conditions of the water. One of them would not have a standard of cleanliness based solely upon analysis of any kind and all were agreed that the standard of cleanliness should not rest upon the effect of the polluted water upon health.

After having decided on the degree of purification the next step in the solution of the problem is to select the process of treatment best adapted with local conditions to produce the results at the lowest cost and without nuisance. No specific rules can be laid down for the selection of the best process for all communities. Domestic wastes offer the least difficulty, but they are usually complicated with the presence of trade or street wastes or both. Features difficult to overcome may then be produced. Then also, the character of the sewage varies greatly with the season, days and even hours. This is due to the habits of the people, to climatic conditions and to the amount and character of trade and industrial wastes and to the amount of water used and allowed to infiltrate. A cannery, creamery, tannery, brewery, strawboard factory, wool scouring shop, dyeing and cleaning works may discharge its wastes so that during a certain period the character of the sewage be entirely changed. Knowledge of these conditions and changes are necessary to plan a successful disposal plant. Each community has its own problem, and while there are certain general conditions that should be considered, each case is more or less unique. Charles G. Hyde, consulting engineer of the California State Board of Health, has summed up the situation in this statement: “It is folly to suppose that because one town can dispose of its sewage successfully in some certain fashion, another town can adopt the same method with a certainty of securing equally satisfactory results. Sewage differs widely in character, not only as between towns but in a given town.”

Processes of Treatment

The processes for treating sewage may be divided into three main groups— the preliminary or preparatory, the main or final, and disinfection.

The processes in the preliminary or preparatory group remove more or less of the solids, especially the suspended matter, but the effluent, or liquid that is discharged into the stream, is chemically unstable and will decompose and putrefy. These are the simplest methods of treatment, and, except when sewage is discharged into very large bodies of water where it is desired only to improve the esthetic condition or where the water is capable of rapid self-purification, at least one of these processes is used in combination with some other form of treatment in the next group. The preliminary processes are dilution, screening (coarse or fine), plain sedimentation, straining or roughing filters, chemical precipitation, slate beds, colloidal tanks, septic tank treatment, and single contact beds.

The main or final processes are more complex. These remove a substantial proportion of the dissolved and suspended matter. The effluent is generally stable. When any one of these processes is used it is customary to provide some preliminary treatment. The processes in this group are double contact beds, trickling (also called percolating), sprinkling filters, intermittent sand filtration and broad irrigation or sewage farming.

In the third group is the process of disinfection, either by hypo- chlorite of lime or liquid chlorine. Some authorities call this third group the finishing process and preface two others, secondary settling tanks and secondary filters. The chemical elements of this group destroy the bacteria, especially the disease producing kind, and are used in combination with one or more of the processes in the other two groups to produce a highly purified effluent.

Several other processes have been developed within the last few years. The electrolytic process is now being used in a few American cities, and has been included in almost all of the experiments now being made by municipalities. The activated sludge process has been adopted by two large cities, Milwaukee, Wis., and Houston, Texas, and two small cities, San Marcos, Texas, and Escanaba, Mich., and is being tested in at least eighteen others, among them Baltimore, Cleveland and Brooklyn. Jersey City, N. J., has tentatively adopted the activated sludge process. Another process, known as the Miles Acid Sludge Process, is being experimented with by the city of Boston.

These processes or variations of them may be used singly or in combinations of two or more to yield different degrees of purification that will meet varying local requirements. Which of these or what combination of processes to use according to local requirements is the all important question for a city to answer. Several cities either have adopted or are planning to adopt the plan advocated by John A. Giles, Commissioner of Public Works of Binghamton, New York, to include a number of the different stages of treatment in the original design so that when future installation is necessary on account of increased population, with its increased pollution, or the need for a greater degree of purification becomes imperative, the addition can be made on the site already provided for and each unit will fit into the complete structure at a minimum cost. The consensus of opinion is that a disposal works can be designed and constructed which will produce an effluent that will not deteriorate the water into which it is discharged, that will create no nuisance from odor or from flies and that the cost will be strictly proportionate to the sanitary and esthetic results achieved.

An approximate idea of the efficiency of the various well known processes in the removal of bacteria was given by Professor George G. Whipple, Professor of Sanitary Engineering, Harvard University, before the New York State Conference of Mayors and Other City Officials:

┌──────────────────────────────┬──────────────────────────────┐
│ Process │Percentage of Bacteria Removed│
├──────────────────────────────┼──────────────────────────────┤
│Fine screens │ 10 to 15 │
│Settling tanks │ 60 to 70 │
│Septic tanks │ 60 to 70 │
│Chemical precipitation │ 80 to 90 │
│Contact filters │ 75 to 85 │
│Percolating filters │ 85 to 95 │
│Intermittent sand filters │ 95 to 99 │
│Broad irrigation │ 95 to 99 │
└──────────────────────────────┴──────────────────────────────┘

Dilution

Comparatively few cities can much longer depend upon large bodies of water to dilute their untreated sewage. Even those cities located on the seacoast and on the banks of large rivers and lakes have either provided some method of treatment, usually one or more of the processes in the preliminary group, or are planning to do so. New York City which has an adjacent large body of water into which it discharges its sewage without treatment of any kind, now finds it necessary to adopt a combination of processes to eliminate the nuisance the waste is causing. In some places where dilution is depended upon, the existing nuisances have been caused by the outlets being extended only to the high water line of the water course, thus preventing a proper mixture of sewage with a sufficient volume of water adequately to dilute it. Other difficulties experienced when untreated or raw sewage is discharged into large volumes of water in excessive quantities are the formation of deposits of sludge, the residue after sewage has been allowed to settle, on the banks and the bottom; turbidity, milkiness and oiliness of the water, bad odors, the formation of scum upon the water and the destruction of shellfish. To overcome these difficulties some cities have resorted to dredging, screening and sedimentation. Others have been compelled to adopt some more complicated process.

The California State Board of Health in one of its bulletins quotes its consulting engineer, Charles G. Hyde, as saying that experience has demonstrated rather definitely that a nuisance will be caused if sewage is diluted with less than about twenty volumes of water while from forty to fifty may in some cases be necessary. Weston believes that in ordinary cases mixtures of sewage and water should be fifty per cent. saturated with oxygen, and when there is an excessive deposit of sludge even seventy per cent. of saturation may be insufficient. Herring and Gregory, in their report on the Albany, New York, system, say: “From observations made in many rivers it has been found that a flow of well oxygenated river water of from three to six cubic feet per second is capable of diluting the sewage from a population of 1,000 to a degree that will allow oxygen in the river water to oxidize the easily putrescible organic matter in the sewage and thereby prevent the water from becoming offensive, provided the velocity of flow is sufficient to prevent accumulations of sewage sludge on the bottom of the stream.”

Screening

The screening process consists of running the sewage through coarse or fine screens, either hand cleaned or mechanically operated, to remove suspended and floating matter. There is almost an unanimity of opinion now in favor of the use of mechanically operated fine screens. The efficiency depends largely although not entirely, upon the size of the mesh or openings through which the sewage passes. Coarse screens, which are cleaned by hand, will remove from two to ten per cent. of the suspended matter and fine screens which are mechanically operated will in some cases remove as much as 25 per cent. Screening will not materially change the turbidity of the liquid or the greasy appearance nor will it remove all of the suspended matter.

Experience has shown that the screening process is valuable in connection with sewage pumping works and inverted siphons, when sewage is disposed of by dilution and when raw sewage is applied without any other preliminary treatment to a final process as it prevents the clogging of machinery and filters.

When the process is used the screenings must ordinarily be disposed of within twenty-four hours on account of fermentation and decomposition which sets in quickly. In some cities the deposits are buried and in others they are burned after having been artificially dried. Robert Spurr Weston says that it seems unwise to attempt to dispose separately of two kinds of sludge, namely that removed before and that remaining after subsidence. “On the other hand,” he continues, “the screening of the effluent from a settling tank in order to reduce the operative charges for cleaning sprinklers is an economical practise. Furthermore, the actual amount of material screened from the effluent is small in comparison with that removed from unsettled sewage and its subsequent disposal is not a serious burden.”

Grit Chambers

If a sewage disposal plant is operated in connection with a combined sewerage system grit chambers are usually necessary for the removal of sand, gravel and dirt before the sewage passes on for further treatment. Where a city has a separate system of sewerage grit chambers are held by some authorities to be unnecessary unless the first wash of the street after a storm is intercepted and the waste is treated. Gregory has expressed the belief that the safest plan under ordinary conditions seems to be to provide a grit chamber. It is generally agreed that the chambers should be so constructed that the sewage will flow through slowly enough for the grit to settle out, but fast enough to carry the organic matter in suspension. To insure proper operation the chamber must be cleaned out frequently. At the Cleveland Sewage Testing Station it has been found that velocities ranging from 30 to 60 feet per minute produce a grit of proper character. The California State Board of Health has advocated chambers with a capacity such that a net period of storage of at least three minutes be allowed and a velocity of not less than five feet per minute.

Straining or Roughing

There are few cities which treat their sewage by the process of straining and roughing. This consists of removing the suspended matter by means of rapid straining through beds of coke or sand arranged like the rapid sand or mechanical water filter. Coke beds, especially in cold climates, have not been a success. The chief objection to the rapid sand filter is the wash water which contains much organic or mineral impurities of the sewage and which requires special treatment which experience has shown to be difficult and expensive. Difficulty has also been found in disposing of the sludge deposited upon the filter surface. Of this process the bulletin of the California State Board of Health says: “The process is an expensive one at best, both as respects construction and operation. The effluent from such works can be made fully equal to, if not better than the effluent of plain sedimentation basins from a sanitary point of view.” The experience of the Cleveland Testing Station with these filters was not favorable. The filters when operated at rates from 30 to 60 gallons per acre per 24 hours removed from 25 to 40 per cent. of suspended matter and their action was simply mechanical, there being no increase in the dissolved oxygen content. The report from the station says that the difficulties encountered in their operation were sufficient to eliminate the process as a method in itself or in combination with other processes.

Treatment in Tanks

The treatment of sewage in tanks, either by chemical or biological processes, has been adopted by many cities, especially as a preliminary treatment. These processes are known as plain sedimentation, chemical precipitation and the septic process. Of these the treatment in the Imhoff tank is the most popular at the present time.

Plain Sedimentation

By allowing the sewage either to flow into properly constructed tanks or through them at a velocity low enough to allow some of the suspended matter to separate from the liquid and to be deposited on the bottom from which the sludge is removed, is another process that has been used by a number of American and European cities. The first tanks were constructed so that they could be filled with sewage and then after the suspended matter had settled the effluent was drawn off. This was known as the fill and draw plan. Later what is now known as the continuous flow principle was used. The velocity of the flowing sewage is reduced sufficiently as it enters and passes through the tank for the suspended matter to settle. The sludge which collects at the bottom of the tank must be removed frequently. The results are affected by the quantity and quality of the sewage, fresh sewage being capable of greater clarification by sedimentation than stale sewage. The range in storage period for American sewages is from four to twelve hours and the removal of suspended matter is from 45 to 75 per cent.

In some cities plain sedimentation has been used in connection with dilution and in others as an aid to filtration. The chief objection to the process is the sludge which is extremely offensive and must be treated separately. It does not dry readily, is difficult to handle and if allowed to accumulate causes serious nuisance. Because of these difficulties and the fact that the sludge from the Cameron and Imhoff tanks can be more easily disposed of the septic process has gradually forced plain sedimentation into the background.

Colloidal tanks were designed to carry the process of clarification further than plain sedimentation, but they have not come into general use. Metcalf and Eddy in their “American Sewerage Practice” say of this process: “There has been a feeling that while under some conditions a portion of the colloidal solids could be removed by such devices, the work accomplished was not likely to be sufficient to offset the expense of construction and some difficulties in operation.”

The Septic Process

In the septic process the raw sewage is conveyed to tanks, and allowed to stand until the solids have settled to the bottom and have been partially destroyed or liquefied by bacterial action. Two types of tanks are used in the septic process, one known as the Cameron type and the other as the Emscher or Imhoff tank.

The best constructed Cameron tanks are not less than 8 feet in depth and are usually large enough to hold about six hours’ maximum flow of sewage. The desirable time of detention depends upon the character of the sewage, both as to strength and freshness, strong and stale sewages demanding a longer period. The tanks are usually built with baffles at the entrance to retard the current and to deflect the suspended matter to the bottom which is so constructed that the sludge, after bacterial action has taken place, can be drawn off from time to time.