Chapter D: C. Faber, Industrial Engineer of the Iowa State College, goes so far (1)

as to claim that practically all nuisances in connection with plants can be traced directly to failure to give them attention. He says that even where plants have been found too small increased care in many cases could be made to offset lack of capacity.

In several states, such as New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Kansas, Ohio and Massachusetts, the State Boards of Health have supervision over the designing of new plants and the operation of those established. The good results obtained as a result of this supervision are evidence that similar powers should be granted to all state boards of health.

With a plant designed to meet local conditions, properly constructed and efficiently managed, a city should have no difficulty in disposing of its sewage economically, in a sanitary manner and without creating a nuisance.

Table II (a)

SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES

─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ GENERAL DATA
├──────────┬────────────────┬─────────────┬─────────────
│Population│ General │ Annual Cost │ Gallons
│ │ Description │ of │ Treated
│ │ Plant │Operation[29]│ Annually
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼────────────────┼─────────────┼─────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ 110,000│Coarse screens, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and pumping │ │
│ │ station. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ 200,000│Coarse screens, │ $1.93 per│
│ │ grit chambers,│ [M.G.]X.│
│ │ Imhoff tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Akron, Ohio │ 150,000│Screens, grit │ │
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks, │ │
│ │ sludge beds, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Alliance, │ 22,000│Cameron tanks. │ 2,200 per│
Ohio │ │ Contact and │ [M.G.]│
│ │ intermittent │ │
│ │ sand filters. │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and slag │ │
│ │ contact beds │ │
│ │ now under │ │
│ │ construction. │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ 37,000│Two plants. Grit│ 8,500│
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ tanks, dosing │ │
│ │ tanks, contact│ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Brockton, │ 63,000│Revolving │ 12,000│ 768,000,000
Mass. │ │ screens, sand │ │
│ │ beds and │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Bloomington, │ 12,000│Septic tank, │ │ 275,000,000
Ill. │ │ center │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ basin, 3 │ │
│ │ contact beds │ │
│ │ arranged │ │
│ │ around center │ │
│ │ basin, nozzle │ │
│ │ spray upon │ │
│ │ filter beds │ │
│ │ surrounding │ │
│ │ contact beds. │ │
Bristol, │ 15,000│Sand filter │ 5,000│
Conn. │ │ beds. │ │
Columbus, │ 220,000│Grit chamber, │ │5,163,000,000
Ohio. │ │ screens, │ │
│ │ pumps, Imhoff │ │
│ │ tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters, final│ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ basins. │ │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ 70,000│Imhoff tanks, │ 20,000│ 700,000,000
│ │ contact beds, │ │
│ │ crushed slag │ │
│ │ and gravel │ │
│ │ filter with │ │
│ │ automatic │ │
│ │ syphon, sludge│ │
│ │ drying beds, │ │
│ │ sand and pea │ │
│ │ gravel │ │
│ │ filling. Half │ │
│ │ of bed covered│ │
│ │ with │ │
│ │ greenhouse │ │
│ │ construction. │ │
│ │ Final effluent│ │
│ │ into creek. │ │
Danbury, │ 23,000│Irrigation and │ 7,500│
Conn. │ │ filtration. │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Texas│ 120,000│Screens, grit │ │
│ │ chambers, │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks │ │
│ │ and sludge │ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Fond du Lac, │ 20,000│Sewage collected│ 3,200│
Wis. │ │ in receiving │ │
│ │ well and │ │
│ │ pumped into │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks. │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ 40,000│Partial │ 1,000│1,825,000,000
│ │ purification │ │
│ │ by settling │ │
│ │ and septic │ │
│ │ process, and │ │
│ │ disposal of │ │
│ │ effluent by │ │
│ │ irrigation of │ │
│ │ alfalfa. │ │
Gloversville,│ 21,000│Primary and │ 22,000│1,022,000,000
N. Y. │ │ secondary │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ tanks, screen │ │
│ │ chambers and │ │
│ │ dosing tanks, │ │
│ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters, │ │
│ │ sludge drying │ │
│ │ beds and sand │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
Houston, │ 140,000│Activated sludge│ 9.25 per│6,570,000,000
Texas │ │ method, │ [M.G.]│
│ │ reinforced │ │
│ │ concrete │ │
│ │ aeration │ │
│ │ tanks, [M.G.] │ │
│ │ settling tanks│ │
│ │ and re- │ │
│ │ aeration │ │
│ │ tanks. │ │
│ │ Continuous │ │
│ │ flow, power │ │
│ │ houses and │ │
│ │ blowers. │ │
Independence,│ 12,000│Cameron tanks │ │
Kas. │ │ and filter │ │
│ │ beds. │ │
Lackawanna, │ 17,500│788,400,000 │ │
N.Y. │ │ 95%. │ │
Milwaukee, │ 450,000│Trial plant │ │
Wis. │ │ operated since│ │
│ │ 1916. Now │ │
│ │ designing │ │
│ │ activated │ │
│ │ sludge plant │ │
│ │ to treat all │ │
│ │ sewage. │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ 38,000│Settling tanks, │ 17,675│ 750,000,000
N.Y. │ │ single story │ │
│ │ septic type, │ │
│ │ constructed in│ │
│ │ five units. │ │
│ │ Sprinkling │ │
│ │ overhead │ │
│ │ Phelps nozzle,│ │
│ │ dosing tanks │ │
│ │ with automatic│ │
│ │ syphon. │ │
New Britain, │ 55,000│Sand filtration.│ 12,000│
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ 24,000│ │ │
Pasadena, │ 42,000│Imhoff and │ │ 730,000,000
Cal. │ │ septic tanks, │ │
│ │ sludge bed and│ │
│ │ sewage farm. │ │
Providence, │ 249,616│Settling tanks; │ 54,954│9,078,620,000
R. I. │ │ disinfection. │ │
Philadelphia,│ 1,800,000│Pennypack Creek │ │ 450,000,000
Pa. │ │ sewage treated│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 110,000│ │ 21,500│2,000,000,000
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 248,465│Detritus tanks, │ │
Y. │ │ fine screens │ │
│ │ Imhoff tanks. │ │
│ │ Plan made for │ │
│ │ effluent to │ │
│ │ run power │ │
│ │ plant. Sludge │ │
│ │ drying beds. │ │
Schenectady, │ 87,000│Imhoff tanks and│ 23,000│
N.Y. │ │ sprinkling │ │
│ │ filters. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ 12,000│Sewage only │ 8,000│
│ │ partly │ │
│ │ treated. A │ │
│ │ settling │ │
│ │ chamber only. │ │
│ │ No filtering │ │
│ │ bed. │ │
Tallahassee, │ 6,000│Single contact │ 2,500│
Fla. │ │ system, 3 │ │
│ │ beds, coke and│ │
│ │ sand, │ │
│ │ filtration │ │
│ │ with automatic│ │
│ │ apparatus. │ │
Woonsocket, │ 43,000│Screening basin │ │
R. I. │ │ and filters. │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │ 170,000│Chemical │ 60,000│6,094,000,000
Mass. │ │ precipitation,│ exclusive of│
│ │ sand filters. │ depreciation│
│ │ │and interest.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴────────────────┴─────────────┴─────────────

─────────────┬───────────────────┬──────────────────────────────
Name of City │ GENERAL DATA │ SEWERAGE SYSTEM
├───────────┬───────┼───────────────┬──────────────
│ Average │ Per │ Kind of │ Preliminary
│ Number │ cent. │Sewerage System│ Treatment
│ Gallons │ of │ │
│ Treated │City’s │ │
│ Daily │ Total │ │
│ │Treated│ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼───────┼───────────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │Mostly combined│Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ 16,000,000│ 90%.│Combined. │Grate bars 1½
│ │ │ │ in. apart,
│ │ │ │ and three
│ │ │ │ grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
Akron, Ohio │ │ │Separate and │Screens and
│ │ │ combined. │ grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Alliance, │ 3,000,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Grit chambers.
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ 675,000│ 22%.│Separate with │Two grit
│ │ │ some surface │ chambers.
│ │ │ water. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton, │ 2,106,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Revolving
Mass. │ │ │ │ screen.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ 750,000│ 100%.│Separate. │Settling basin
Ill. │ │ │ │ with weirs.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │ 1,500,000│ 90%.│Separate. │None.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │ 21,300,000│All for│Separate and │One in. and
Ohio. │ │ 242│ combined. │ one-half in.
│ │ days.│ │ vertical bar
│ │ │ │ screens
│ │ │ │ mechanically
│ │ │ │ operated.
│ │ │ │ Grit
│ │ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ 1,900,000│ 95%.│Separate. │Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │ 300,000│ │Mostly │Coarse screens
Conn. │ │ │ separate. │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
Dallas, Texas│ 10,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Coarse screens
│ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │Separate with │Screens and
Wis. │ │ │ cistern │ grit
│ │ │ overflow │ chambers.
│ │ │ connected │
│ │ │ with │
│ │ │ sanitary. │
Fresno, Cal. │ 5,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Chamber for
│ │ │ │ trapping
│ │ │ │ crude oil.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│ 2,800,000│ 90%.│Separate. │Coarse
N. Y. │ │ │ │ screens.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, │ 18,000,000│ All.│Separate. │Coarse screens
Texas │ │ │ │ and grit
│ │ │ │ chambers for
│ │ │ │ two-thirds
│ │ │ │ of sewage.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │Separate. │
Kas. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │Separate. │Grit chamber.
N.Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │130,000,000│ │Separate with │Coarse screens
Wis. │ │ │ first wash │ and grit
│ │ │ from street. │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ 2,000,000│ 75%.│Separate with │Coarse bar
N.Y. │ │ │ much wet │ screens.
│ │ │ weather │
│ │ │ infiltration.│
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │ 4,000,000│ All.│Separate. │None.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ │ │ │
Pasadena, │ 2,000,000│ 95%.│Separate with │None.
Cal. │ │ │ first wash │
│ │ │ from street. │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │ 24,872,000│ │Combined. │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│ 1,250,000│ One-│Combined first │Coarse screens
Pa. │ │ third│ wash from │ and grit
│ │ of 1%.│ street. │ chamber.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ 6,000,000│ 60%.│Separate. │Two grit
│ │ │ │ chambers.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ 55,000,000│ All.│Combined. │Six detritus
Y. │dry weather│ │ │ tanks and
│ flow,│ │ │ fine
│173,000,000│ │ │ screens.
│wet weather│ │ │
│ flow.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady, │ 72,000,000│ 70%.│Separate and │
N.Y. │ │ │ combined. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │ │Separate. │Two grit
│ │ │ │ chambers 20
│ │ │ │ x 30 ft.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │ 100,000│ │ │Grit chamber.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │ 1,500,000│ │Separate. │Coarse screens
R. I. │ │ │ │ between
│ │ │ │ screening
│ │ │ │ basins and
│ │ │ │ pump well.
Worcester, │ │All dry│Separate and │Grit chambers
Mass. │ │weather│ combined. │
│ │ flow│ │
│ │ and│ │
│ │ first│ │
│ │part of│ │
│ │ storm│ │
│ │ water.│ │
─────────────┴───────────┴───────┴───────────────┴──────────────

─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ SEWAGE PUMPING
├──────────┬─────────────┬───────────┬──────────────
│ What │ Gallons │ Daily │ Kind and
│Percentage│ Pumped │Capacity of│ Number of
│of Sewage │ Annually │ Pumps │ Pumps
│is Pumped │ │ │
│ to Plant │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼──────────┼─────────────┼───────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│Large │ Three 10│Three var. │
│ part. │[M.G.]D. each│ speed 24 │
│ │ and three 15│ in. and │
│ │[M.G.]D. each│ three │
│ │ │ const. 24│
│ │ │ in. │
│ │ │ electric │
│ │ │ power. │
Atlanta, Ga. │Some. │ 50,000,000│ │Centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Alliance, │None. │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Brockton, │All. │ │6,000,000 │Two Knowles
Mass. │ │ │ │ triple
│ │ │ │ expansion
│ │ │ │ condensing
│ │ │ │ steam power.
Bloomington, │None. │ │ │
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │All once │5,163,000,000│50,000,000 │One 12 in.
Ohio. │ and 10% │ │ │ Worthington,
│ twice. │ │ │ one 20 in.
│ │ │ │ Morris, two
│ │ │ │ 18 in. and
│ │ │ │ one 12 in.
│ │ │ │ De Lavel.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
Canton, Ohio.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Texas│All. │ │22,500,000 │Two
│ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ steam power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │All. │ 1,000,000 a│60,000,000 │Four
Wis. │ │ day.│ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│None. │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, │105.2% │8,611,000,000│30,000,000 │One air
Texas │ some │ │ │ ejector six
│ twice. │ │ │ single
│ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ pumps.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│None. │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │95%. │ 788,000,000│720,000 │Centrifugal
N.Y. │ │ │ power. │ steam
Milwaukee, │33%. │ 42,000,000│60,000,000 │Three
Wis. │ │ │ │ centrifugal,
│ │ │ │ 20 million
│ │ │ │ each.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │15%. │ 110,000,000│5,000,000 │Two vertical
N.Y. │ │ │ │ centrifugal
│ │ │ │ electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │None. │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │None. │ │ │
Pasadena, │None. │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │Yes. │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Yes. │ 450,000,000│4,000,000 │One eight in.
Pa. │ │ │ │ and one ten
│ │ │ │ in.
│ │ │ │ Worthington,
│ │ │ │ vertical. By
│ │ │ │ gas.
Reading, Pa. │All. │ │One 6 and │Two
│ │ │ the other│ centrifugal
│ │ │ 8 │ electric
│ │ │ millions.│ power.
Rochester, N.│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Schenectady, │40%. │ 40,000,000│15,000,000 │Five direct
N.Y. │ │ │ │ connected
│ │ │ │ motor
│ │ │ │ vertical
│ │ │ │ centrifugal.
Sumter, S. C.│None. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │No. │ │ │
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │100%. │ │2,200 per │Centrifugal.
R. I. │ │ │ min. │ By steam.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │2%. │ │ │Four
Mass. │ │ │ │ centrifugal.
│ │ │ │ Electric
│ │ │ │ power.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴──────────┴─────────────┴───────────┴──────────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────────
Name of City │ SEWAGE PUMPING
├────────────────┬─────────
│ Annual Cost of │Number of
│Pumping Station │ Feet
│ │Sewage is
│ │ raised
│ │
│ │
├────────┬───────┤
│ Total │ Per │
│ │Million│
│ │ Gals. │
│ │Raised │
│ │a Foot │
─────────────┼────────┼───────┼─────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Brockton, │ $30,000│ .975│ 40.
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │
Ill. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │ $23,656│ .16│ 21.6
Ohio. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Canton, Ohio.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Danbury, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
Dallas, Texas│ │ │ 42.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Gloversville,│ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Houston, │ $23,500│ .136│ .25.
Texas │ est.│ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
│ │ │
Lackawanna, │ 9,000│ │ 18.
N.Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │ │ 22.
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │ │ 26 ft.
N.Y. │ │ │including
│ │ │friction.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
New Britain, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Oswego, N.Y. │ │ │
Pasadena, │ │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
Philadelphia,│ │ │ 41.
Pa. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ $14,500│ │ 39.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Schenectady, │ $10,000│ │ 23.
N.Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │ │
Fla. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │ │ 20⅓
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Worcester, │5,509.35│ │
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴────────┴───────┴─────────

Table II (c)

SEWAGE DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES (Continued)

─────────────┬───────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ INDUSTRIAL WASTES
├─────────────────┬────────┬────────────────
│ Establishments │ What │ Methods of
│ Which Empty │ Kinds │Treatment Where
│ Wastes Into │ Are │ Wastes are
│ City’s Sewerage │Treated │ Purified
│ System │ Before │ Separately
│ │They are│
│ │Emptied │
│ │ Into │
│ │Sewerage│
│ │ System │
─────────────┼─────────────────┼────────┼────────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │
│ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │Steel mills, tin │From gas│Plain
│ can works, gas │ works.│ sedimentation.
│ works, coal and│ │
│ gas plants. │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │
Ohio │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│None. │ │
Brockton, │Shoe factory and │ │
Mass. │ tannery. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bloomington, │No. │ │
Ill. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │Tanneries, │None. │
Ohio │ breweries, │ │
│ starch works, │ │
│ wool cleaners, │ │
│ packing plants.│ │
Canton, Ohio │Various │None. │
│ factories, │ │
│ including iron │ │
│ and steel; │ │
│ chief waste is │ │
│ rags. │ │
Danbury, │Hat factories. │None. │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Dallas, Tex. │Packing houses, │ │
│ laundries, dye │ │
│ works. │ │
Fond du Lac, │Laundries, │None. │
Wis. │ cleaning │ │
│ establishments.│ │
Fresno, Cal. │Fruit canneries │None. │
│ and packing │ │
│ houses. │ │
Gloversville,│Leather and │All. │Settling tanks.
N. Y. │ canneries; 26% │ │
│ of total is │ │
│ trade waste. │ │
Houston, Tex.│Pressed and dried│ │
│ │ │
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
Lackawanna, │None. │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │Breweries, │None. │
Wis. │ tanneries, soap│ │
│ works, │ │
│ laundries, hair│ │
│ works and │ │
│ packing houses.│ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │ │
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
New Britain, │Pickling liquor. │ │
Conn. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │
[31]Pasadena,│Laundries. │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │Woolen mills, │ │
R. I. │ bleacheries, │ │
│ dye houses, │ │
│ jewelry │ │
│ factories. │ │
Philadelphia,│No. │ │
Pa. │ │ │
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │Soap and dye │ │
│ works, │ │
│ tanneries, │ │
│ paper mills, │ │
│ breweries, │ │
│ laundries, hat │ │
│ factories, │ │
│ electroplating │ │
│ works. │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
Schenectady, │Laundries, │ │Oil skimmed off
N. Y. │ locomotive and │ │
│ electrical top │ │
│ of tanks. │ │
Sumter, S. C.│None. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │Chera Cola Works,│None. │All run into
Fla. │ and garages. │ │ grit chamber
│ │ │ before
│ │ │ entering main.
Woonsocket, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Worcester, │Carpet mills, │None. │
Mass. │ tanneries and │ │
│ dye works. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴─────────────────┴────────┴────────────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────┬────────────────────────
Name of City │ SLUDGE DISPOSAL │ FINAL TREATMENT
├─────────────┬────────┼───────────┬────────────
│How is Sludge│ Any │Is Effluent│ Is there a
│ Disposed of │Revenue │Disinfected│ Secondary
│ │ from │ │ Settling
│ │Disposal│ │ Tank
│ │ Plant │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼─────────────┼────────┼───────────┼────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │No. │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │Filling and │None. │No. │No.
│ fertilizer.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │Burned. │ │ │Yes.
Alliance, │Dried on beds│None. │No. │No.
Ohio │ and hauled │ │ │
│ to farmers.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │No. │No.
Brockton, │Fertilizer │None. │No. │From
Mass. │ and fill. │ │ │ sprinkl’r.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │No. │
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │Plowed into │ │ │
Conn. │ land │ │ │
Columbus, │Dried on beds│None. │No. │Yes.
Ohio │ and spread │ │ │
│ on city │ │ │
│ farm. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio │Fertilizer. │ │None. │No.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │Fertilizer. │$400. │No. │No.
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Tex. │ │ │No. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │Filling. │ │ │No.
Wis. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│Fertilizer │$300. │No. │Yes.
N. Y. │ and fill │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, Tex.│ │ │No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │No. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │Pressed, │ │No. │
Wis. │ dried and │ │ │
│ sold for │ │ │
│ fertilizer.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │Fill. │None. │No. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │Fill. │None. │No. │
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │ │
[31]Pasadena,│Fertilizer. │None. │No. │
Cal. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Providence, │Pressed and │ │ │Yes.
R. I. │ carried │ │ │
│ away on │ │ │
│ scows. │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Philadelphia,│Fertilizer. │None. │Liquid │Yes.
Pa. │ │ │ Chlorine.│
│ │ │ │
Reading, Pa. │Fertilizer. │None. │No. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │Plans made │
Y. │ │ │ for such.│
Schenectady, │Fill. │ │No. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │None. │No. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │ │No. │Yes.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │ │No. │No.
R. I. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │Fill and │None. │No. │No.
Mass. │ fertilizer.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┴─────────────┴────────┴───────────┴────────────

─────────────┬──────────────────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ FINAL TREATMENT
├───────────┬───────────┬───────────────┬──────────────
│ Per cent. │ Per cent. │What Degree of │ Is Plant
│ of │of Bacteria│Purity Required│ Operating
│ Suspended │ Removed │ │Satisfactorily
│ Matter │ │ │
│ Removed │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
─────────────┼───────────┼───────────┼───────────────┼──────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Atlanta, Ga. │ │ │ │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │ │
Alliance, │ │ │ │No.
Ohio │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│ │ │Yes. │
Brockton, │61.2. │95. │As high as │Not entirely.
Mass. │ │ │ possible. │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bloomington, │ │ │ │Yes.
Ill. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Bristol, │ │ │ │Yes.
Conn. │ │ │ │
Columbus, │25. │80–90. │Varies with │Some parts
Ohio │ │ │ stream and │ satisfactory
│ │ │ weather │ others not.
│ │ │ conditions. │
│ │ │ │
Canton, Ohio │98. │ │85. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Danbury, │ │ │ │Yes.
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Dallas, Tex. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │ │ │Yes.
Wis. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │30. │No standard. │Yes.
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Gloversville,│ │ │ │Yes.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Houston, Tex.│95–98. │95–99. │85–90. │
│ │ │ │
Independence,│ │ │ │
Kas. │ │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │ │90. │Yes.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
Milwaukee, │95. │95. │95. │
Wis. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │70. │80. │Non- │Yes.
N. Y. │ │ │ putrescible. │
│ │ │ │
New Britain, │ │ │ │No.
Conn. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │ │ │
[31]Pasadena,│ │ │ │Imhoff
Cal. │ │ │ │ satisfactory
│ │ │ │ septic “as
│ │ │ │ well as can
│ │ │ │ be expected
│ │ │ │ of any
│ │ │ │ septic
│ │ │ │ tank.”
Providence, │ │Total │ │
R. I. │ │ bacterial│ │
│ │ 64%; B │ │
│ │ Coli │ │
│ │ 96.9. │ │
Philadelphia,│60. │100 acid │Absence of acid│Yes.
Pa. │ │ formers. │ forming │
│ │ │ bacteria. │
Reading, Pa. │71.1 │86. │State standard.│Yes.
│ exclusive│ │ │
│ of solids│ │ │
│ removed │ │ │
│ by grits.│ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │ │
Y. │ │ │ │
Schenectady, │40. │70. │ │Fairly so.
N. Y. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│Great │ │ │No objection
│ Portion │ │ │ as it
│ │ │ │ empties into
│ │ │ │ swampy
│ │ │ │ stream.
Tallahassee, │ │ │ │Yes.
Fla. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Woonsocket, │100. │97. │ │Yes.
R. I. │ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
│ │ │ │
Worcester, │87. │No │Effluent from │
Mass. │ │ standard.│ sand filter │
│ │ │ excellent; │
│ │ │ chemical │
│ │ │ precipitation│
│ │ │ poor. │
─────────────┴───────────┴───────────┴───────────────┴──────────────

─────────────┬────────────────────────────────────────
Name of City │ FINAL TREATMENT
├──────────────┬────────┬────────────────
│ If Not, Why? │Distance│ Any Odor at
│ │of Plant│ Plant
│ │ from │
│ │ Center │
│ │of City │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┼──────────────┼────────┼────────────────
Albany, N. Y.│ │Two │
│ │ miles.│
Atlanta, Ga. │ │4–7 │Not sufficient
│ │ miles.│ to cause
│ │ │ inconvenience.
│ │ │
Akron, Ohio │ │ │
Alliance, │No technical │1 mile. │Yes.
Ohio │ supervision.│ │
│ Large │ │
│ quantities │ │
│ of roof │ │
│ water during│ │
│ storms. │ │
Auburn, N. Y.│5 miles. │ │
Brockton, │Sand beds in │3 miles.│During damp
Mass. │ operation 22│ │ weather
│ years and │ │
│ have reached│ │
│ capacity. │ │
Bloomington, │ │1½ │Not over 1,000
Ill. │ │ miles.│ ft. under
│ │ │ worst
│ │ │ conditions.
Bristol, │ │2 miles.│Not much.
Conn. │ │ │
Columbus, │Insufficient │5 miles.│Yes.
Ohio │ capacity. │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Canton, Ohio │ │8 miles.│Very little.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Danbury, │ │2½ │None from beds;
Conn. │ │ miles.│ sometimes when
│ │ │ flow exceeds
│ │ │ maximum it is
│ │ │ turned into
│ │ │ swamp, and
│ │ │ during hot
│ │ │ weather there
│ │ │ is odor.
Dallas, Tex. │ │3½ │
│ │ miles.│
│ │ │
Fond du Lac, │ │1 mile. │No.
Wis. │ │ │
│ │ │
Fresno, Cal. │ │7 miles.│Yes.
│ │ │
│ │ │
Gloversville,│ │2 miles.│Some.
N. Y. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Houston, Tex.│ │2.5 │None expected.
│ │ miles.│
Independence,│ │ │
Kas. │ │ │
Lackawanna, │ │1 mile. │No.
N. Y. │ │ │
Milwaukee, │ │Centre │No.
Wis. │ │ of │
│ │ city. │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Mt. Vernon, │ │1 mile. │A few days
N. Y. │ │ │ noticeable ¼
│ │ │ mile.
New Britain, │Voids almost │3 miles.│
Conn. │ completely │ │
│ clogged by │ │
│ pickling │ │
│ liquor. │ │
Oswego, N. Y.│ │¼ mile. │
[31]Pasadena,│5 miles. │ │
Cal. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Providence, │ │ │
R. I. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Philadelphia,│ │12 │
Pa. │ │ miles.│
│ │ │
Reading, Pa. │ │3 miles.│Some at times of
│ │ │ cleaning.
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
Rochester, N.│ │ │
Y. │ │ │
Schenectady, │ │2½ │At first, but
N. Y. │ │ miles.│ not now.
│ │ │
│ │ │
Sumter, S. C.│ │1½ │Slight as it
│ │ miles.│ empties at
│ │ │ mouth of
│ │ │ outfall.
│ │ │
Tallahassee, │ │1 mile. │Only when
Fla. │ │ │ cleaning grit
│ │ │ chamber.
│ │ │
Woonsocket, │ │1 mile. │No, except
R. I. │ │ │ slight smell
│ │ │ like dish
│ │ │ water.
Worcester, │ │3 miles.│Very little.
Mass. │ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
│ │ │
─────────────┴──────────────┴────────┴────────────────

-----

Footnote 29:

Includes depreciation and interest on investment.

Footnote M.G.:

Million gallons.

Footnote 31:

City has a sewage farm of about 518 acres, and the effluent from the
septic tank is used to irrigate about 450 acres of the farm. The
cities of Pasadena, South Pasadena, and Alhambra have purchased a new
sewage farm where they plan jointly to purify their sewage.

Footnote 32:

“Same force of men can handle one acre as one-half acre, or twice as
great a flow.”

Footnote 33:

Does not include interest and depreciation.

Footnote 34:

In winter draw as little as possible; in summer draw as much as
possible; the aim being to leave the tanks as free as possible from
good sludge when cold weather comes.

Footnote 35:

Operation of Imhoff tanks costs nothing as city allows a man to use
two acres of land to compensate him for caring for tank. The septic
tank is attended to only once a year, and probably does not cost more
than $30 annually.

ASHES AND RUBBISH
COST AND METHODS OF COLLECTION AND DISPOSAL IN AMERICAN CITIES—
EQUIPMENT—REGULATIONS—BY-PRODUCTS

So many cities either collect ashes and rubbish together or the two are collected by the same department or under the same contract that any attempt to give the experience of American municipalities with the collection of each of these wastes would be of little value. The collection of both kinds of waste will, therefore, be discussed with the idea of presenting such information as will give any city, large or small, a basis for determining the feasibility of ash and rubbish collection by municipal employees or by contract, giving the various methods used in the larger American communities, so that the one best adapted to local conditions may be adopted, and the price a city should pay for the service.

Any city contemplating the collection of its refuse or wishing to determine the efficiency and economy of the service it is giving or receiving must consider:

(1) Type of Collection system:
a. Combined collection of garbage, rubbish and ashes.
b. Separate collection of each kind of refuse.

(2) Method of Collection:
a. By whom done.
b. Districting of city.
Number and location of districts.
c. Organization of collecting force.
d. Kind of equipment.
Receptacles.
Vehicles.
Incinerators.
Paper presses.
e. Location of receptacles.
f. Frequency of collection.
g. Time of removal.
(3) Enforcement of collection regulations.

(4) Disposal:
Dumping exclusively.
Incineration, wholly or in part.

(5) By-products:

Collection Systems

The systems of collection and disposal are so closely related that they must be considered together. There are two kinds of collection systems, the combined and the separate. The combined system may be further divided.

Many large cities collect garbage, rubbish and ashes separately. Garbage is then incinerated or disposed of by the reduction method. Ashes are used for fill and the rubbish is sorted either at the dumps or in utilization plants and the unsalable material either dumped or incinerated or both.

The separate system is profitable only in the larger cities where reduction plants can be operated at or near a profit, where an incineration plant can be centrally located in order to reduce the cost of haul or the heat can be used to produce power or where the reclaimable rubbish is sufficient to pay for rescuing it.

A system that can be used with nearly all methods of disposal is the separate collection of garbage and the combined collection of rubbish and ashes. This is the most popular system in America, for in many cities garbage is disposed of separately and rubbish is dumped. In many such cases, and especially where the ashes are used for fill, separation is required to allow the disposal of the ashes in places not suitable for mixed material.

In cities which have destructors for the incineration of garbage and rubbish and which use the ashes for fill, the separate collection of ashes and the combined collection of garbage and rubbish is the best system. In some cases a part of the ashes is added to the garbage to aid combustion.

Where the combined collection of garbage, rubbish and ashes is used the city disposes of all these wastes either by dumping or by total incineration.

In a few places furnace ashes are collected separately and rubbish, garbage and stove ashes together. When this system is used the furnace ashes are used for fill and the other wastes are incinerated.

There is considerable difference of opinion as to which plan is desirable, but practically all agree that local conditions should contribute the chief factor in determining which system is the best for a city.

The method of disposal is another factor. Reports agree that if all wastes are collected together as a rule the cost of collection will be less than if each is collected separately.

John H. Gregory, sanitary expert, says that separate collection will be found in many instances to be less convenient at the house and more complicated and more expensive than the combined collection. He asserts that the combined collection will usually prove to be cleaner and to have fewer objectionable features, and with this system it should be easier to secure and to keep a better grade of employees. He points out that the mixing of garbage with rubbish and ashes will prevent in a large measure the blowing about of the latter, will lessen the dust nuisance, and indirectly may lessen the cost of street cleaning. The decomposition of garbage is far less noticeable and from the point of view of preventing a nuisance the receptacles and wagons will not require such frequent cleaning. He says, also, that the fly nuisance is reduced to a minimum and that there is less likelihood of odor should the refuse be stored up for final disposition. As but one type of wagon is required for collection Mr. Gregory believes that the system is probably easier to adopt and easier to enforce, fewer regulations being required.

In a discussion of the advantages of the incineration method of disposal the _American Journal of Public Health_ says that ashes may be used for incineration on account of the percentage of unburned coal which they usually contain. The percentage of unburned coal in ashes is between 19½ and 24½. Several experts call attention to the cost of incineration. Mr. Gregory believes that when refuse is incinerated it may be more expensive to burn all ashes with garbage and rubbish than simply to burn the garbage and rubbish. He points out that in some cities it may be found advantageous to adopt the combined system in certain districts and separate collections in others, depending upon local conditions.

Careful consideration should be given to the following reasons for and against keeping ashes and garbage separate: It is not necessary to collect ashes so frequently as it is garbage; different methods of disposal require separate handling; garbage with its moisture when mixed with ashes will not freeze in the can as readily in winter, thus facilitating collection. Some experts, however, assert it is more desirable to keep the wastes separate in order to use the ashes for fill and to sell the reclaimable rubbish. Many cities require the separation either of all wastes or of garbage. Of the fifty largest cities in the United States and all cities in New York State only thirteen do not require that each class of refuse be kept separate. One or two report that the plan had to be abandoned as it was found difficult to get the people, especially those living in the poorer districts, to comply with the rule of keeping the wastes separate. Other cities, which do require a separation, report that while it was found difficult at the beginning to enforce the regulation, persistent educational work and patience eventually brought their reward. Where all of the waste is dumped many cities prohibit the mixing of paper or combustibles with ashes and rubbish. If this is not done the experience of many cities is that there are liable to be serious dump fires.

Methods of Collection

Some cities have ash and rubbish collection done by contract; in others the work is done by city employees; in a few both plans are used; and in many small communities the work is done by licensed collectors. The last Census Report shows that in eighty-five of the 158 cities for which statistics are given the collection is made either by contract or by the city, 72 per cent. being collected by the cities and 28 per cent. by contract.

Collection by private collectors is by no means confined to the small cities, as the following table indicates:

TABLE III.—_Ash Collection by Private Collectors_

┌──────────┬────────────┬────────────┬─────────┬────────────┬────────┬────┐ │Population│Name of City│ How Much │ Does He │ │ │Does│ │ │ │ Does │ Furnish │ │How are │City│ │ │ │ Collector │ Can and │ Type of │ Ashes │Own │ │ │ │ Charge │ if so, │ Wagon Used │Disposed│ or │ │ │ │Householder?│ Does He │ │ of? │Rent│ │ │ │ │ Require │ │ │Dump│ │ │ │ │Deposit? │ │ │ │ ├──────────┼────────────┼────────────┼─────────┼────────────┼────────┼────┤ │ 100,000│Duluth,[36] │15¢ per can │ No │ Box │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Minn │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 17,000│Glens │10¢ per can │Furnishes│ │ │ │ │ │ Falls,[36]│ │ can, no │ │ Dump │Own │ │ │ N. Y. │ │ deposit │ │ │ │ │ 10,447│Johnstown, │50–75¢ trip │ No │ │ │ │ │ │ N. Y │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 12,273│Little │$1 a load │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Falls, N. │ │ No │1 horse, box│ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 40,093│Elmira, N. │10¢ per can │ Yes, $1 │ │ Dump │Rent│ │ │ Y. │ │ deposit │ │ │ │ │ 13,000│Cortland, N.│$1 per load,│ │ Any wagon │ │ │ │ │ Y. │ 15¢ per │ │ with tight │ │ │ │ │ │ can │ No │box approved│ Fill │Rent│ │ │ │ │ │by sanitary │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ inspector, │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │canvas cover│ │ │ │ 110,000│Albany, N. Y│10 to 13¢ │ No │ │ Dump │Free│ │ 10,474│Oneonta, N. │ │ │ │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 165,000│New Haven, │15¢ per can │ No │ │ Fill │ │ │ │ Conn. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 11,136│Fulton, N. │10–15–25¢ a │ No │ │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y. │ can │ │ │ │ │ │ 8,317│Oneida, N. │75¢ to $1. │ No │ Any type │ Dump │Own │ │ │ Y. │ │ │ │ │ │ │ 23,368│Oswego, N. Y│10 to 15¢ │ │ │Dump and│Own │ │ │ │ │ No │ │ fill │and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │rent│ │ 131,000│Grand │15¢ a week │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Rapids, │ for │ │ │ │ │ │ │ Mich. │ residence,│ │ │ Dump │ │ │ │ │ special │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │ for others│ │ │ │ │ │ 10,711│Rensselaer, │10 to 13¢ │ No │ Covered │Fill and│Own │ │ │ N. Y. │ │ │ │ dump │ │ │ 58,571│Portland, │10¢ barrel │ │ │Fill and│Free│ │ │ Me. │ │ No │ Open cart │ dump │and │ │ │ │ │ │ │ │own │ └──────────┴────────────┴────────────┴─────────┴────────────┴────────┴────┘

-----

Footnote 36:

City also collects.

John H. Gregory is of the opinion that, as a general rule, the best results may be expected from municipal ownership and operation of collection equipment. The Chicago City Waste Commission reports that where the householder hires a private scavenger to remove ashes and rubbish it usually results in greater cost than when the work is systematically done by the city at public expense. If work is done by contract supervision at public expense is almost imperative when the best results are desired. Regulation must be strict and well enforced. The experiences of cities which have used all three methods are in favor of municipal collection.