T D 
 
 UC-NRLF 
 
 SB 113 
 
-a. 
 
 rnrm ciimrAfr 
 
 REPORT 
 
 STATE ENGINEER, WM. HAM. HALL, 
 
 BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE STOCKTON INSANE ASYLUM 
 
 SEWERAGE FOR THE INSTITUTION IN THEIR CHARGE. 
 
 LIBRARY 
 
 APR 2 9 1945 
 
 SACRAMENTO: 
 
 STATE OFFICE, JAMBS J. AYEKS, SUPT. STATE PKINTING. 
 
 1883. 
 
EXCHANGE 
 
OFFICE OF THE STATE ENGINEER, CALIFORNIA, \ 
 SACRAMENTO, August 30, 1883. j 
 
 The Honorable Board of Directors of the Stockton Insane 
 Asylum: 
 
 GENTLEMEN: The question of sewerage for your institution 
 naturally divides itself into two parts : 
 
 The First What shall be done with the sewage matter ? 
 
 The Second By means of what works and appliances shall 
 it be disposed of? 
 
 The ultimate determination of each of these questions 
 involves a consideration of the other, but the study must 
 commence with the first mentioned. 
 
 This report is divided into five parts; the first four being 
 devoted to the first question above mentioned, and the last 
 one to the second question, as follows : 
 
 Part i The Pollution of Rivers and Estuaries. 
 Part 2 The Application of Sewage to Land. 
 Part 3 The Artificial Treatment of Sewage. 
 Part 4 The Disposal of the Asylum Sewage. 
 Part 5 The Sewage Works Proposed at the Asylum. 
 
 In submitting this paper I do not apologise for requiring 
 so much of your time as it will take to read a long report, 
 because I am impressed with the magnitude of the subject, 
 and with a sense of the fact that we are about to take a step 
 which will be looked to as having been a precedent, when in 
 the future this sewage disposal question shall have attracted 
 as much attention here as it has in older countries ; and I feel 
 that it is our duty as officers of the State to leave behind a 
 record of the fact that we have looked deeper than the sur- 
 face of the matter, and tried, at least, to start aright. 
 Very respectfully, 
 
 Your obedient servant, 
 
 WM. HAM. HALL, 
 
 State Engineer. 
 
WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH SEWAGE? 
 
 PART 1 THE POLLUTION OF RIVERS AND ESTUARIES. 
 
 THE EFFICIENCY OF SEWERAGE WORK. 
 
 Every sewerage proposition must be considered from the 
 standpoint of efficiency as well as from that of cost. 
 
 To be efficient such a system must effect the final disposition 
 of the sewage matter in a way unobjectionable alike to the 
 locality sewered, to other localities, and the public generally 
 
 The question of efficiency in sewerage systems has received 
 very much attention within the past few years. 
 
 European centers of population, and outlying districts as 
 well, have been thoroughly shaken in their social structures by 
 this sewage question, and are yet earnestly considering it. 
 
 And even in the comparatively young communities of our 
 Eastern States such sanitary matters occupy a prominent 
 place in the minds of the thinking people of all leading cities 
 and suburban neighborhoods, and have received fitting recogni- 
 tion at the hands of professional and scientific men. 
 
 As the result of this activity of practice, observation, and 
 thought, there is a fund of experience for us to contemplate. 
 
 The professional man who undertakes to look beyond the 
 surface of this subject finds at his command a library of 
 recorded experiences and facts, which are multiplying so rap- 
 idly that there is no branch of applied science at this time 
 more progressive than that known as Sanitary Engineering. 
 
 No questions in this connection have received more earnest 
 attention than those of the efficiency of the disposal of sewage ; 
 
first, by mingling it with the waters of streams and tidal estua- 
 ries ; and second, by applying it to land ; and, as auxiliary to 
 each or both of these-, third, the question of the artificial treat- 
 ment of sewage matter to render it more easy of efficient final 
 disposal by the other mentioned methods. 
 
 The sewage to be dealt with at your institution is simply 
 fouled water that is, it is "water carried," and not "midden- 
 stead" matter. 
 
 The object of all sewerage work in dealing with this class of 
 sewage must be to return the water to its natural state of 
 purity, and to change to harmless, if not useful, forms, the 
 other constituent parts of the substance treated. 
 
 THE POLLUTION OF WATERS. 
 
 The practice of the disposal of sewage by mingling it with 
 the waters of rivers, tidal estuaries, etc., has been upheld upon 
 the theory that running waters soon purify themselves : that 
 the organic matters become changed in character, and other 
 objectionable parts so far dispersed or altered as to lose ap- 
 preciable influence upon the human senses and all harmful 
 effect upon the human system. 
 
 It was allegecf that the particles of the organic (animal and 
 vegetable) parts of noxious matters, being dispersed by 
 mingling with comparatively large bodies of water when 
 dumped into a river or estuary, were brought in contact with 
 the combined or dissolved oxygen of the air in the water, or of 
 the air over the water, by the rolling or boiling motion of the 
 current, and thus oxidized a change equivalent in its effect 
 to burning. 
 
 The theory appeared to be well founded. A number of 
 instances were cited where the waters of streams polluted by 
 sewage, apparently cleared themselves by running a few miles. 
 Others were brought forward where clear water streams pol- 
 luted by peaty matter, and rendered dark and opaque by the 
 vegetable organic matter held in solution, became clear after 
 running similarly short distances. These changes it was said 
 
were due to oxidation of the animal matter in the one case 
 and the vegetable matter in the other; and, hence, that the 
 waters were purified. 
 
 And it was argued that contact with air under these condi- 
 tions of mingling with water, having this effect of oxidizing 
 organic matter in these cases, it would have such effect in all 
 cases, and, hence, the mingling of sewage with running or 
 tide agitated waters was not a vicious and objectionable 
 practice. 
 
 So well grounded has this theory appeared, and so strong 
 were the interests involved in its favor, that in England, "until 
 "recently, sanitary engineers have done their best to remove 
 "sewage matter from towns into rivers in obedience to legisla- 
 tive requirements." (Bailey Denton, Lectures, etc., p. 248.) 
 
 But for years there has been the most violent opposition to 
 this "pernicious and disgusting practice/' throughout Western 
 Europe, but more especially in England, where the subject has 
 been forced to the front in ways that could not be ignored, 
 and where the form of laws and social organization appears 
 to have allowed wider range to the discussion than it attained 
 in the other countries. 
 
 But facts soon proved that the theory of self-purification of 
 river waters was at fault. Some streams of no less but greater 
 volume, receiving no more or perhaps less sewage, did not 
 purify their waters as was alleged of others, and inquiry 
 developed the fact that by no means all peaty waters become 
 pure in their onward flow. 
 
 And, most perplexing of all, it was observed that streams 
 which for years had received sewage matter without much 
 apparent detriment to their waters, became foul to every sense, 
 within a comparatively short space of time, and without any 
 considerable increase in the amount of sewage led into them. 
 
 The subject now assumed a serious form. Great sewerage 
 works had been carried out, immense manufactories located 
 and operated, and all depending for efficiency upon the 
 
8 
 
 privilege of a free outfall for sewage into the tidal or inland 
 waterways of the country. 
 
 The battle now became fierce. Sanitarians generally, and 
 towns located low down on the streams, protested against 
 the pollution of the waters by town sewage and manufacturing 
 offal at points above. 
 
 The property owners ("rate payers," so called in English lit- 
 erature really non-resident landlords in many instances) 
 in towns where sewerage works had been constructed leading 
 the sewage into the streams, as well as those in other towns 
 which desired to construct works on this principle, together 
 with the manufacturers generally, who were for getting rid of 
 their offal waters in the easiest way to avoid further expense 
 to themselves, vigorously opposed interference with existing 
 practices. 
 
 The fight now became a war very similar to the struggle 
 which has gone on in this State between the hydraulic miners 
 and the farmers and others in the Sacramento Valley, with not 
 so much organization of the contending parties, however; but 
 with legal points on both sides, and denial and assertion of 
 facts in a way almost identical. 
 
 The objection urged that the waters were rendered unfit for 
 drinking purposes was answered by saying that they ought to 
 be filtered, and that all waters ought to be filtered before 
 drinking, anyhow. About this stage of the contention other 
 towns and cities resorted to filtering their water supplies, and 
 supplying companies were forced by legislative enactment to 
 maintain filter beds in connection with their works. 
 
 In the meantime the attention of scientific men had been 
 secured, and a store of systematically arranged facts was 
 accumulating from observation and experiment. The aid of 
 chemistry had been invoked and waters were subjected to 
 chemical analysis with comparatively satisfactory but some- 
 times startling results, for waters which had been regarded as 
 pure and which were so to all appearance, taste, and smell, 
 were shown to be laden with organic matter of a character 
 
calculated to develop the most deadly zymotic diseases under 
 conditions favorable for such development. 
 
 Some apparent cases of self-purification of streams were 
 shown to be delusive : the waters were clarified and deodorized 
 but not purified either of their organic impurities or inorganic 
 elements not to be desired in potable waters. 
 
 The next step towards the truth was the result of systematic 
 studies into the causes of apparent self-purification of river 
 waters in some instances, by which results the old theory of 
 the oxidation of organic matters by contact with the air, and 
 the consequent purification of river waters, as heretofore stated, 
 is shown to have been altogether in error. 
 
 It is now known that, as a general thing, waters polluted by 
 the organic matter of sewage do not purify themselves within 
 any limited space of time or distance of flow, as has been sup- 
 posed, and in no material degree by the sole action of the 
 oxygen contained in the water or of the air above it. 
 
 It is certain that alleged cases of self-purification are only 
 apparent to the eye and sense of smell, and are not real ; and 
 it is contended that if waters are dangerous to health they had 
 better have the noxious appearance and smell, and thus carry 
 with them a warning of their character, than be tempting to 
 the eye or lulling in effect. 
 
 It is explained that the action of self-purification of rivers 
 of organic matter, found to take place in some cases, is due to 
 the admixture from tributary streams or springs along their 
 banks, of other waters having certain mineral substances (such 
 as ferric oxide, copper, and allumina) in solution, or to the 
 action of certain clays or the mineral constituents of certain 
 clays which compose their bed or banks ; and hence that such 
 instances of self-purification are due to peculiar circumstances, 
 which, being local and not generally distributed, establish the 
 rule as against self-purification at all. 
 
 It is understood that the action of the soil of the banks or 
 bed of a stream in purifying its waters of organic matter, after 
 awhile ceases, and that in the mean time the soil itself has 
 
10 
 
 become foul and poisoned to a degree that its effect upon the 
 water, were it really purified above, would be to re-impart a 
 noxious organic matter to it in a considerable degree. 
 
 SOME AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT. 
 
 The line of authorities in support of these general conclu- 
 sions is so very extended that any attempt to give a fair idea 
 of them in a hurriedly prepared paper as this one must be, 
 would be futile ; and at the same time it should be remarked 
 that opinions are not all one way. A careful tracing of the 
 subject, however, has led me to the conclusions which I have 
 given ; and I believe that any one at all competent to judge 
 of scientific argument, acquainted with the standing of the 
 leading men who have appeared in it, and who will laboriously 
 trace the subject through the records of the original authori- 
 ties, will find them overwhelmingly in support of the proposi- 
 tions I have laid down, both as to bearing of facts and 
 argument. 
 
 A few citations will show their general tone on this point of 
 the pollution of river waters : 
 
 The Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 Consequent upon the rapid deterioration in the quality of 
 river waters in England, and upon the growing opposition 
 to the mingling of sewage with them, in 1865, by authority of 
 law, a Royal Commission was appointed to inquire into the 
 subject. 
 
 Men of the very highest professional and scientific standing 
 and widest experience were appointed to the Board. Sir 
 Robert Rawlinson, Past President of the Institution of Civil 
 Engineers ; John T. Harrison, Esq., Member of the Institution, 
 and of the Local Government Board of the Kingdom, and 
 Professor John T. Way, one of the leading chemists of the 
 country, being the members. 
 
 In the first report of this Board (pp. 18 to 22) is to be found 
 a summary of the extended series of experiments upon the 
 subject of " self-purification of river waters," and it is conclu- 
 
II 
 
 sively shown that the idea is a fallacy that purification in 
 any considerable degree, except in very rare cases, does not 
 take place. This report raised a perfect storm of opposition 
 supposed to be in the interest of capital interested in property 
 and works that would have to be heavily taxed if any change 
 was made in the manner of disposing of sewage. 
 
 In 1868 the Queen commissioned a new set of members of 
 the Rivers Pollution Commission. These were Sir W. T. Deni- 
 son, Colonel in the Corps of Royal Engineers ; Edward Frank- 
 land, Esq., one of the most eminent chemists of the present 
 age; and John C. Morton, Esq., an eminent sanitarian. 
 
 This was a collection of eminent men charged, by the terms 
 of their commission, with the duty of "inquiring how far the 
 present use of rivers or running waters in England for the pur- 
 pose of carrying off the sewage of towns and populous places, 
 and the refuse arising from industrial processes and manufac- 
 tures, can be ~ prevented without risk to the public health or 
 serious injury to such processes and manufactures, and how far 
 such sewage and refuse can be utilized and got rid of other- 
 wise than by discharge into rivers or running waters, or ren- 
 dered harmless before reaching them," etc. 
 
 For the sake of brevity, I quote only from the sixth report 
 of the Commission, issued in 1874, it being the latest to hand 
 at this day. 
 
 Under the head of "Quality of water from different sources" 
 the Commission say: 
 
 " 6. River water, usually in England, but less generally in Scotland, 
 ' consists chiefly of the drainage from land which is more or less culti- 
 'vated. When it is further polluted by the drainage of towns and 
 ' inhabited places, or by the foul discharges from manufactories, its 
 'use for drinking and cooking becomes fraught with great risk to 
 'health. A very large proportion of the running waters of Great 
 ' Britain are either at present thus dangerous or are rapidly becoming 
 'so." (Sixth Kept. Riv. Poll. Com., p. 425.) 
 
 Under the heading, "As to the possibility of rendering polluted 
 water again wholesome:" 
 
12 
 
 " i. When the sewage of towns or other polluting organic matter 
 "is discharged into running water the suspended matters may be more 
 "or less perfectly removed by subsidence and filtration, but the foul 
 "organic matters in solution are very persistent. They oxidize very 
 " slowly, and they are removed only to a slight extent by sand filtra- 
 "tion. There is no river in the United Kingdom long enough to 
 "secure the oxidation and destruction of any sewage which may be 
 "discharged into it, even at its source." (Work cited, p. 427.) 
 
 And, finally, for the purpose of this special point in my 
 subject, I quote a paragraph found under the heading "As to 
 the Propagation of Epidemic Diseases by Potable Water :" 
 
 " i. The existence of specific poisons capable of producing cholera 
 " and typhoid fever is attested by evidence so abundant and strong 
 " as to be practically irresistible. These poisons are contained in the 
 " discharges from the bowels of persons suffering from these diseases." 
 
 " 2. The admixture of even a small quantity of these infected dis- 
 " charges with a large volume of drinking water is sufficient for the 
 " propagation of those diseases amongst persons using such water." 
 
 " 3. The most efficient artificial filtration leaves in water much 
 " invisible matter in suspension, but constitutes no effective safeguard 
 " against the propagation of these epidemics by polluted water. 
 " Boiling the infected water for half an hour is a probable means of 
 " destroying its power of communicating these diseases." (Work 
 cited, p. 427.) 
 
 The Metropolitan Water Supply Commission. 
 
 Another systematic examination of a portion of this subject 
 was conducted by a Royal Commission similarly authorized by 
 law, known as the " Water Supply Commission!' 
 
 It was charged with an inquiry into resources of the country 
 to meet the rapidly increasing demand for pure water for the 
 use of the great metropolitan towns and cities of the kingdom. 
 
 Composed of the (afterwards) President of Her Majesty's Privy 
 Council (the Duke of Richmond); the President of the Institu- 
 tion of Civil Engineers (Mr. T. E. Harrison); the late President 
 of the Geological Society and Professor of Geology at Oxford 
 (Mr. J. Prestwich); and the Chairman of the Metropolitan 
 Board of Works (Sir J. Thwaites), this Commission also ranks 
 high as a scientific and practical authority. It had ample 
 means at its disposal to employ the men best suited to conduct 
 the work of the investigation, and we must accept its conclu- 
 
13 
 
 sions, which were that the great cities might continue to derive 
 water from the rivers ; provided, that there was supplied "perfect 
 filtration and efficient measures for excluding the sewage and 
 other pollutions." (Bailey Denton, Lectures; p. 44.) 
 
 Experimental Work. 
 
 Scientifically and practically this subject has been quite 
 thoroughly investigated by the first experimentalists of England 
 and France. Here is a brief outline of points made in one line 
 of discussion immediately connected with it : 
 
 M. Pasteur. 
 
 M. Pasteur, a French chemist, whose professional standing 
 is so high that his researches are frequently spoken of as being 
 classical, has shown that even at a temperature of 30 C. 
 "the oxygen of the air has but a trifling action on extremely 
 " changeable material, such as the albuminoid matter in yeast 
 "water, or absolution of sugar." ("Annales de Chimie et de 
 Physique" $d series, vol. LXIV, pp. 35 and 36, also p. 71.) 
 
 This fact, of course,. goes contrary to the old theory of the 
 self-purification of river waters of organic matter by the action 
 of the oxygen contained in them, etc. 
 
 The conclusions of Pasteur were taken up by other chem- 
 ists and observers and applied directly to the sewage disposal 
 problem, and there are a number of opinions, based on experi- 
 ment, to show that the organic matter of sewage is not oxid- 
 ized upon being turned into a river, but is precipitated to the 
 bottom or carried in solution. 
 
 Dr. Tidy. 
 
 Those opposed to the conclusions of Pasteur and other 
 authorities have not been without support amongst scientific 
 men, and it was attempted to be shown that instances did 
 exist where river waters purified themselves of organic matter 
 held by them, that such action was due to the oxidation of 
 such .matter, and hence that all rivers being subject to the 
 same general influence of air, should so become purified. 
 
Dr. Tidy, speaking of the clarification of the waters of the 
 river Shannon, and loss of organic peaty matter in flowing 
 short distances, says that "the quantity of organic matter (of 
 peaty origin) is kept in check by the following means, which 
 are two, namely : 
 
 "i. The inherent power that water possesses of self-purification 
 " from the oxidation of the peat by the oxygen held in solution in the 
 " water. This process is enormously helped by certain natural and 
 "physical conditions, whereby the more complete aeration of the 
 " water and the more intimate contact between oxygen and the peat is 
 " effected. 
 
 " 2. Mechanical precipitation by .admixture with coarse mineral 
 "suspended matter." ("Tidy on River Water" Jour. Chem. Soc., 
 vol. XXXVII, p. 295.) 
 
 Frankland and Halcrow. 
 
 As offsetting this evidence of Dr. Tidy's, in favor of the 
 self-purification theory, Dr. Frankland and Miss Lucy Halcrow 
 conducted a series of experiments which " lead to the conclu- 
 " sion that if peaty matter dissolved in river water is sponta- 
 " neously oxidized at all (of which they consider there is no 
 " sufficient proof), the process takes place with exceeding slow- 
 " ness, and cannot be accomplished to any considerable extent, 
 "in the flow of a river. The evidence proved the fact that 
 " peaty matter is less oxidizable than animal matters under 
 "the same conditions." (Halcrow and Frankland's tests of 
 Tidy's conclusions, Jour, of the Chem. Sec., vol. xxxvii, p. 506, 
 Trans.) 
 
 Dr. Frankland, criticising Dr. Tidy's experiments, remarks 
 that " the apparently superior action that Dr. Tidy attributes 
 to air acting on" (the organic matter in) "running water" "is 
 absent in the case" of water falling elsewhere than in the river 
 channel. ("On the spontaneous oxidation of organic matter in 
 wafer" Work cited, p. 538.) 
 
 Dr. Frankland has shown "that a flow of between n and 13 miles 
 "of a stream polluted with sewage has very little effect on the organic 
 "matter dissolved in the water even at a temperature of 18 .Cent." 
 
 "And he has shown in the case of the River Wear, flowing between 
 "Bishop Aukland and Durham, which has been quoted by Dr. Tidy 
 
15 
 
 "in illustration of- his theory of oxidation of sewage, the purification 
 "is caused by an admixture of highly ferruginous waters, a fact which 
 "does not appear in Dr. Tidy's quotation."* 
 
 The above is an illustration of the class of error into which 
 some scientific men have fallen in this field of investigation, 
 and the subsequent exposure of such error by other investiga- 
 tions more thoroughly conducted. 
 
 But the investigation has been recently carried further and 
 evidence is now at hand which seems to set aside the strongest 
 argument of those who have hefd to the old theory the argu- 
 ment of facts observed of the self-purification of peaty rivers. 
 
 Hartley and Kinahan' s Experiments. 
 
 Mr. Gerard A. Kinahan, Association Royal College of 
 Science, Dublin, by and with the advice and consultation of 
 Prof. W. N. Hartley, F.R.S.E., has made a most satisfactory 
 study: 
 
 ist Of the effect of thorough aeration on the organic 
 peaty matter in river waters. 
 
 2d Of the cause of the natural clearing of the waters of 
 some peaty rivers and loss of organic matter. (See "Report on 
 the clearing of peaty waters!' by Gerard A. Kinahan, 2d series, 
 Vol. Ill, Proc. Roy. Irish Academy, pp. 447, 596. Also, " The 
 self -purification of peaty rivers" by W. N. Hartley, F.R.S.E., 
 Jour. Soc. of Arts, 1882.) 
 
 Aeration does not produce oxidation. 
 
 Waters highly charged with organic peaty matter which in 
 their natural courses were dashed to spray in falling several 
 hundred feet (360 in one instance and 700 in another) in rock 
 bound channels in their natural course, being thus thoroughly 
 aerated, were found, as shown by analytical testing of the car- 
 bon, nitrogen, and ammonia contained therein, to have lost no 
 appreciable part of such organic matter. 
 
 Prof. Hartley says of these results: "I consider the fore- 
 
 * " On the Self Purification of Peaty Rivera," by W. N. Hartley, F.B.S.E., Journal Society of 
 Arts, 1883. 
 
16 
 
 " going analyses conclusive evidence that a peaty river cannot 
 " undergo the slightest degree of purification from its organic 
 " constituents by the natural process of aeration." 
 
 Mechanical Action. 
 
 The mechanical action of clay sand, pure quartzose sand, 
 gelatinous silicia and magnesia, in reducing the amount of 
 organic peaty matter by subsidence, was tested, but no reduc- 
 tion thereby could be detected. 
 
 The same action of carbonate of lime, powdered chalk, and 
 limestone was found to be practically nothing, but the chemi- 
 cal action was slightly apparent in reducing the amount of 
 organic matter. 
 
 In the same mechanical way the effect of particles of clay 
 of different kinds was tested and found to be nothing, while 
 the action of iron and alumina associated with these particles 
 had some material effect on the peat coloring matter in caus- 
 ing the particles to adhere to the particles of clay " as to a 
 mordant." 
 
 Professor Hartley says of this series of experiments : 
 
 " The results of the experiments with clay sand, pure quartzose 
 " sand, gelatinous silicia, and magnesia, prove that there is no decol- 
 " orizing action on the peaty coloring matter which can be described 
 " as mechanical" 
 
 Effect of Mineral Waters. 
 
 The effect of waters containing mineral matter in solution 
 was tested where a tributary from a mining district, whose 
 waters were highly charged with such mineral matters as ferric 
 oxide, alumina, and copper, mingled with the waters of a 
 peaty river, and it was found "that with the increase in min- 
 " eral matter there was a marked decrease in the organic peaty 
 " matter held in solution." 
 
 Effect of Low Temperature. 
 
 It was found that low temperatures caused the concentra- 
 tion of peaty coloring matters towards the bottom of a vessel 
 and the clarification of that above ; but the action was very 
 
17 
 
 slight in producing a precipitation of the peaty matter in the 
 form of an insoluble sediment. 
 
 Peaty streams are less highly colored in cold weather, 
 because the bogs are frozen and the waters run over instead of 
 percolating through. 
 
 Oxides, etc. 
 
 Commonly occurring forms of metallic hydroxides such as 
 aluminic hydroxide and ferric hydroxide caused a rapid and 
 efficient precipitation of the coloring matter of peat waters, 
 while the oxides of these waters were efficient but much less 
 rapid in producing the same effect. 
 
 Chemical Action of Clays. 
 
 The chemical action of several kinds of clays, or their min- 
 eral constituents, in causing the precipitation of organic peaty 
 matter from river waters was found to be very marked and 
 prompt. 
 
 Peaty waters running in their natural beds are shown to be 
 clarified by coming in contact with beds of blue clay, and by 
 an admixture of iron stained waters flowing into them from 
 marshy spots on their course the iron "causing ochreous 
 precipitations of peaty matter" "on to the stones of the 
 channel," and " the waters becoming beautifully clear." 
 
 Professor Hartley says : 
 
 " This is a true case of the self-purification of a river water by the 
 " action of a mineral constituent contained in its bed and banks." 
 
 Finally, the observations of Mr. Kinahan, and work of Prof. 
 Hartley, have shown that the diminution in organic peaty 
 matter observed and shown by Dr. Tidy to take place in the 
 waters of the Shannon, is not caused by oxidation consequent 
 upon aeration; "but is nothing more than the mixing of two 
 " waters followed by the precipitation of organic matter con- 
 " tained in one of them." 
 
 The results of the series of experiments undertaken by 
 Prof. Hartley and Mr. Kinahan, although not altogether appli- 
 3 
 
i8 
 
 cable to the question of sewage pollution of river waters, when 
 taken in connection with the outcome of the researches of 
 Pasteur and of Frankland, seem to upset the arguments of 
 Dr. Tidy, who has been one of the ablest defenders of the 
 old theory of self-purification of river waters. 
 
 Mr. Folkard. 
 
 One of the very latest writers on this .subject is Mr. C. W. 
 Folkard, C. E., associate of the Royal School of Mines, mem- 
 ber of the Institution of Civil Engineers. In 1882 he read a 
 paper before the Institution, from which the following extracts 
 and summarizations are made: 
 
 " Rivers are the natural drains of a country, into which every par- 
 "ticle of rain falling within their watersheds (except, etc.,) ulti 
 " mately finds its way, with everything which it is capable of dissolv- 
 ing or suspending. Highly manured" arable lands, pastures, with 
 "their thousands of cattle and sheep, mills, factories, village cess- 
 "po<41s, and lastly town sewers, all contribute their quota of foul 
 "water; in some cases to such an extent that the river becomes an 
 " open sewer in which no fish can live, and the exhalations from 
 "which, especially in hot climates, spread fever and death around." 
 
 Speaking of the detection of impurities in waters contami- 
 nated by sewage, Mr. Folkard says : 
 
 " The organic substances in solution and suspension are the most 
 " important on account of their dangerous nature, and, unfortunately, 
 " they are the ones with which the chemist is least able to deal. As 
 " yet he has been compelled to be content with the examination and 
 " estimation of the products of their decomposition ammonia and 
 " nitrous or nitric acids or with the determination of one or two of 
 "their constitutional elements (carbon and nitrogen)." 
 
 It is perhaps needless to say that these "organic substances" 
 are contributed to sewage principally as the wastes of the 
 human system. 
 
 Mr. Folkard asserts that in the matter of detecting organic 
 impurities in water, chemists as yet are 
 
 " Powerless to help the sanitarian in discriminating between whole- 
 " some and unwholesome water." ***** 
 
 "In the first place," he says, "it is an ascertained fact, 
 " proved beyond the possibility of doubt," (by microscopical methods), 
 
19 
 
 " that mere dilution, however far soever it be carried, does not render 
 "inoperative the specific action of living germs." 
 
 The generally accepted theory of the propagation of zymotic 
 diseases is that the living germ, or matter capable of evolving 
 that germ under favorable conditions, being taken into the 
 system, such germs are propagated in the blood, and hence 
 the disease. Evidently in view of this theory, Mr. Folkard 
 says: 
 
 " Provided the individual is sufficiently weakly or unhealthy, it is 
 " of small importance whether he receive one thousand or one million 
 " parts of infectious matter (whether in the form of organized germs, 
 " or not, is immaterial), and, consequently, one part of infected sewage 
 " containing the dejecta of persons suffering from zymotic disease, 
 " mixed with one million parts of water, will be nearly as dangerous 
 " to him as one part per thousand." 
 
 The difference being simply, of course, the less chance there 
 would be of happening to drink the particular drop of water 
 carrying the germ matter when the rate of dilution is great 
 than when it is small ; and, also, again to use the words of our 
 authority, " the less contaminated water would probably not 
 affect a person in more robust health who might succumb to 
 the use of the highly contaminated sample." 
 
 This author insists "that it will be impossible to banish 
 " zymotic disease from a town where water supply has been con- 
 " taminated with the dejecta of patients suffering from that class 
 " of disease. The very weakly will contract it from the almost 
 " inappreciable amount of infection contained in the water, and 
 " from them it will spread to those who have resisted the poison 
 " in its diluted state." 
 
 He then goes on to state v as a conclusively established fact, 
 " that the germs which cause or accompany disease are en- 
 " dowed with the most persistent vitality, and are capable of 
 " withstanding heat, cold, moisture, drought, and even chemical 
 " agents, to a marvelous extent." 
 
 And illustrating this fact, he says : 
 
 " So difficult is it to destroy them that for many years the now ex- 
 
20 
 
 " ploded doctrine of spontaneous generation found talented supporters 
 " who relied on their own carefully conducted experiments to prove 
 " the theory, all which experiments were subsequently found to have 
 " been rendered illusory by the astounding vitality of these low forms 
 "of life." 
 
 And finally upon this point, Mr. Folkard says : 
 
 " The conclusion, that, once contaminated, water never purifies 
 " itself sufficiently to be safe for dietetic purposes, becomes inevitable. 
 i * * * * The only safe test of the wholesomeness of a given water 
 " is by tracing it to its source, and ascertaining that no objectionable 
 " impurities gain access to it." 
 
 Emphasizing the conclusion that the waters of a running 
 stream once polluted with the class of matter of which I have 
 spoken, do not purify themselves, Mr. Folkard says : 
 
 " The chemist in the laboratory can effect complete purification 
 " only by adopting a similar process to that by which it is effected in 
 " nature fixation of the ammonia in the soil, or its oxidation to 
 " nitric acid" (by the effect of contact with air or free oxygen), " fol- 
 " lowed by distillation by the heat of the sun." 
 
 He then gives an illustration of the effect of contributing 
 sewage matter, even in very small quantities, indeed contain- 
 ing the dejecta of zymotic patients upon the potable quality 
 of water, and says : 
 
 " The above is no fanciful picture. The experiment was tried on 
 " the inhabitants of a town in Surrey, unwittingly, it is true, but on 
 u that account the result is the more reliable. An epidemic broke 
 " out, and the consequent -investigation revealed the cause in all its 
 " loathsome details. Fortunately for mankind at large, the relation 
 " in this case between cause and effect was distinctly traceable, but 
 " in the great majority of cases this is out of the question." 
 
 And finally, under this heading I find this unqualified con- 
 clusion : 
 
 " There is not the least evidence to show that foul water is ren- 
 " dered wholesome by flowing fifty or one hundred miles; indeed, 
 " all experiments point in the opposite direction, on account of the 
 " persistent vitality of the organisms which accompany zymotic dis- 
 " ease, and of the utter failure of dilution to disarm these potent 
 " germs of corruption and death." 
 
21 
 
 Mr. Folkard is of opinion that the sources of the pollution 
 of river waters, besides town sewage, in England, are so 
 numerous and varied in character, that they cannot be cut off, 
 and, consequently, that the endeavor to purify such river 
 waters so as to be fit for drinking purposes, by the exclusion 
 of sewage from them, is futile ; that the rivers ought to be 
 abandoned as sources of water supply, and water stored or 
 drawn from artesian wells be used altogether for drinking 
 purposes. 
 
 Engineers Generally. 
 
 Engineers and sanitarians generally in England differ from 
 him in this opinion, and show pretty conclusively that he is 
 wrong on this point ; but however this may be, any applica- 
 tion of his theory to the conclusion that things should be let t 
 to drift as they are because they cannot be wholly remedied, is 
 a weak point in argument even for the case as it stands in 
 England, and no point at all in any argument which might 
 come up on this matter in California. For our streams are 
 not yet polluted to any considerable extent in the way we are 
 now considering, and in the great central valley of the State, 
 at least, the topography is such as to shield them from natural 
 pollution to a very considerable extent. Our question here 
 will be shall the streams be preserved from pollution, so that 
 the argument of bad-any-how-might-as-well-be-worse can 
 never be used in opposition to proper sanitary measures. 
 
 Furthermore, this argument in favor of letting things drift 
 as custom tends is answered by invoking the doctrine of 
 chances brought forward by Mr. Folkard himself for the pur- 
 pose of parts of his argument. The chances of bad results 
 are greater in proportion to the certainty of pollution. That is 
 to say, waters directly polluted from the zymotic patient by 
 leading sewage into them are much more certain to prove poi- 
 sonous to persons drinking them than waters which may have 
 been polluted with the same class of noxious matter carried 
 into them by the washings from streets, alleys, cow yards, 
 manured fields, etc. 
 
22 
 
 In the discussion before the Institution of Civil Engineers 
 which followed the reading of Mr. Folkard's paper there were 
 eminent men of learning and observation who differed with 
 him upon some of his leading conclusions, as well as others 
 who coincided with him in his views. 
 
 Baldwin Latham. 
 
 For instance: Mr. Baldwin Latham, a civil engineer of 
 wide experience and special practice in sanitary works, main- 
 tained that there was evidence to show that river waters receiv- 
 ing sewage purified themselves of their organic disease germs 
 in running less than the 50 to 100 miles of which Mr. Folkard 
 spoke, and he cited the case of Birmingham, where there was no 
 cholera in 1848-49, taking its waters for domestic use from the 
 River Tame 20 miles down stream from where they were pol- 
 luted by the sewage of Bilston, Wolverhampton, and other 
 places where the disease raged violently. 
 
 Disease Propagation. 
 
 If I mistake not, however, the force of argument from this 
 instance would be set aside by the recent, perhaps more 
 recently adopted, theory of the germ-in-air propagation of 
 this particular disease, and the conclusion that the action of 
 the atmosphere being required to develop its germs the dis- 
 ease may not be conveyed in water charged with the dejecta 
 of cholera patients. 
 
 However this may be though, and notwithstanding the fact 
 that there is some evidence that poison is not always conveyed 
 by means of waters polluted at localities where zymotic diseases 
 prevail to quarters where the waters are used for domestic 
 purposes, and notwithstanding the fact that there are still 
 some men of attainment an$ observation in sanitary matters 
 who contend that the deposit of sewage in running streams is 
 not very dangerous to health and comfort, but that the waters 
 purify themselves of the disease producing matters which have 
 been put into them, as they advance on their course, in the 
 literature of the subject, there are many more instances cited 
 
23 
 
 which appear to prove that disease is conveyed to great dis- 
 tances in running water; and, as I have said, the greater 
 number of sanitarians including engineers, doctors of medi- 
 cine, chemists, microscopists, and biologists of eminence, and 
 practical observers not of scientific attainment so far as I am 
 able to judge by a somewhat extended search and reading of 
 the original authorities, now, either in moderate or in radically 
 positive terms condemn the practice of polluting the waters 
 of running streams even in a very slight degree by the intro- 
 duction of crude sewage or any other similar matter therein. 
 
 The fact that a general practice yet is to dispose of the 
 sewage of towns in this way is no argument in its favor or 
 against the conclusion that it is a vile and filthy practice, 
 unworthy of the age, and productive of a vast amount of 
 misery and death to the people. 
 
 A very general practice, to this day, is to dispose of the 
 noxious offal of dwellings in unlined pits that are never 
 cleaned out, situated on the same village or town lot whence 
 drinking waters are drawn from shallow surface wells ; yet no 
 fact of sanitary science is more conclusively proven than that 
 the soil, for considerable distances around such pits, is impreg- 
 nated with the matter cast into them, and that the waters, 
 even those found below an apparently impervious "hardpan" 
 substratum, are polluted by contamination, and, being used as 
 potable waters, are frequently the cause of diseases of the 
 class ranked as zymotic, and which are so fatal. 
 
 These subjects are not thoroughly understood by sanita- 
 rians, in their several specialties even. There are undoubtedly 
 remarkable exceptions to be noted, as I have before said, to 
 the rule that impregnated waters carry disease germs great 
 distances, and do not purify themselves ; but in explanation 
 of these apparent exceptions, it is to be remembered : First, 
 that they are in cases where cholera was not produced by the 
 cause spoken of, and now it transpires that cholera is not con- 
 veyed in the water, but in the air, and : Second, that although 
 disease may be shown not to have followed the drinking of 
 
24 
 
 waters polluted by its germs at a distance of twenty miles or 
 more away in certain instances, this may not be evidence that 
 the germs have been destroyed in the interim, but that the 
 conditions necessary for their development in the persons of 
 the population where imbibed, may not have been present. 
 
 And, finally, we have in explanation of these exceptional 
 cases, the results of the most recent investigations, elsewhere 
 given, which show that local causes, not general, sometimes 
 purify river waters, but that these cases are rare. 
 
 The Difference of Opinion. 
 
 As accounting in a great degree for the difference of opinion 
 on this subject in the countries where it has been forced to the 
 public attention, we are to remember that the move to stop the 
 pollution of the streams is a reform, a reform against an estab- 
 lished abuse that has gradually grown up, that there are vast 
 moneyed interests arrayed from selfish motives against the 
 reform on the one side of the argument, while on the other side 
 are those actuated purely by a love of truth, science, and 
 cleanliness, and an interest in the welfare of the people at large. 
 
 If anything, England is a manufacturing country. Her vast 
 wealth is largely invested in manufacturing establishments or 
 enterprises connected therewith or dependent thereon. Manu- 
 factories of some kinds produce vast quantities of sewage matter. 
 Paper mills, cotton, cloth, and woolen mills, bleaching estab- 
 lishments, dye works, chemical works, gas works, and a number 
 of others being about the most prolific of such putrescible offal 
 waters and wastes calculated to pollute waters and poison river 
 beds and banks. 
 
 The manufacturers are a most powerful class; they are 
 organized much as the hfdraulic miners are in this State. 
 Leading members of Parliament in both houses are said to be 
 Manufacturing Kings. If this be so, and we can well believe a 
 good deal of it, we have an explanation of the fact that the 
 reform movement has made but slow progress in that country 
 and we have an explanation of the condition of things 
 depicted in the following paragraph : 
 
25 
 
 " It would really seem that although the whole country is agreed 
 " that the death rate is sensibly increased by neglecting the condition 
 " of our streams, no government is strong enough to revert to the 
 " law of the Egyptians and say: 'Thou shalt not defile our rivers.' 
 " Loss of life would appear to be preferred to loss of trade, and 
 " although the preference may be reconciled to individual interest, it 
 " is entirely opposed to the national weal." (Bailey Denton, Lectures, 
 etc., p. 47.) 
 
 And again (p. 181): 
 
 " The influence of the opposition of manufacturers upon the past 
 " and present governments has resulted in a temporary respite, and 
 " some ground has been lost by temporizing, which had been pre- 
 " viously gained by slow and steady steps; but when saying this it is 
 " impossible to evade the conclusion that the perfect and permanent 
 " cleansing of sewage will be sooner or later insisted upon by every 
 " voice in the country, and by no persons more decidedly than by 
 " the manufacturers themselves." 
 
 In closing this subject, notice of two leading opinions in our 
 own country will not be amiss, although they are not so late 
 in date as much which I have given above. 
 
 J. P. Kirkwood, C. E. 
 
 In 1875 the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts 
 enacted a law " to provide for an investigation of the question of 
 the use of running streams as common sewers in its relation to 
 the public health'' 
 
 By this law the. State Board of Health was instructed to 
 carry on themselves, or through their agents, an investigation 
 of the subject of "the correct method of drainage and sewerage 
 " of the cities and towns of the commonwealth, especially with 
 " regard to the pollution of the' rivers, estuaries, and ponds by 
 " such drainage or sewerage." 
 
 On this general point condemnatory of the practice of 
 depositing sewage in the streams, Mr. James P. Kirkwood, 
 C. E., said : 
 
 "The maintenance of the purity of our running streams has been, 
 " in the United States, generally neglected. * * * 
 
 "It was long thought that sewage was destroyed by running water, 
 " but now it is believed by chemists to be all but indestructible there." 
 
26 
 
 " The poisons may be so largely diluted as to be beyond the read- 
 " ings of analysis, and yet they may be sufficient, when fairly pre- 
 "sented and understood, to render the water, by reason of that 
 " knowledge, not merely repulsive or suspicious, but more or less dan- 
 gerous for family use." (Kept. Mass. Bd. of H., 1876, pp. 23-154.) 
 
 Mr. Kirkwood is a Civil Engineer of Brooklyn, N. Y., of 
 high standing, and the Board, in their report, say of him: 
 "Mr. Kirkwood has brought to the work a rare experience 
 "and a thorough knowledge of sanitary engineering. His 
 " conclusions and suggestions are fully concurred in by the 
 " Board/' (Work cited, p. 9.) 
 
 In the report above cited is a paper by C. F. Folsom, M. D., 
 Secretary of the Board, who in 1876 investigated the matter 
 of sewage disposal in Europe, and writes concerning that part 
 of the subject, and therein occurs the following: 
 
 " Much indeed has been said as to the complete self-purification of 
 "rivers by a flow of a few dozen miles. No. such power exists. The 
 "solid parts are deposited, and what remains looks clear and bright, 
 "especially when largely diluted. Chemical changes take place too 
 "sometimes decomposition, sometimes putrefaction, sometimes simple 
 "elective combinations. If sewage contain the germs of disease, 
 "whatever they may be, no agency at present known, except a suffi- 
 ^ciently high temperature, will efficiently destroy them. Excessive 
 "dilution simply diminishes the chances of danger from any particular 
 "tumblerfull." 
 
 Without attempting to be at all thorough, for the subject 
 grows upon one's hands the further it is examined, I have 
 endeavored to show in this part of my report, by citing the 
 opinions and conclusions of those who have looked into the 
 subject in a thorough manner : 
 
 That house and town sewage is a noxious matter capable of 
 imparting or causing the most deadly diseases when taken 
 into the system in very moderate quantities even ; 
 
 That deposited in a river, estuary, or other body of water 
 (except the sea, perhaps), it is not deprived of its noxious 
 qualities it is not destroyed, but dihitcd; 
 
 That streams so polluted do not "purify themselves," that 
 the sewage is not "carried away" even, but that the solid 
 
27 
 
 matters of the sewage settle to the bottom and there poison 
 the soil of the channel bed and banks, and that much animal 
 organic matter (supposed to be the germs of disease, or asso- 
 ciated with such germs, or capable of evolving them, or of 
 producing conditions under which disease is evolved, it matters 
 not which), is held in solution in the water and is only very 
 slowly destroyed ; 
 
 And, hence, that any pollution of a stream by sewage 
 matter is a material pollution ; 
 
 That public opinion is being formed to these conclusions in 
 older countries, but that the question is lulled to rest there and 
 hushed up, and the reform in sewage disposal is only gradually 
 progressing, because of the great outlay in works of sewerage 
 already constructed having river outfalls, the consequent great 
 expense to change the systems, and the immense moneyed 
 interests in other ways arrayed from selfish motives against 
 the reform; 
 
 And, finally, that any authority undertaking to dispose of 
 sewage by depositing it in a stream, even one whose waters 
 are but occasionally used and by a small number of people only, 
 are assuming a responsibility or committing an act for which 
 they may, in the near future, and certainly will, before many 
 years go by, in some form, be held accountable, at least, as 
 having erred. 
 
 If I have failed in adducing evidence to substantiate these 
 views, it may be said that I have not done the subject justice 
 in my selection and arrangement of it, for enough may be had 
 to make this report many times as long as it is, and from the 
 best sources, and of the most practical kind. 
 
WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH SEWAGE? 
 
 PART II. THE APPLICATION OF SEWAGE TO LAND. 
 
 "LAND THE PURIFIER OF LIQUID SEWAGE." 
 
 The sewage of which we speak, as I have before written, is 
 polluted water the proportion of polluting matter being small 
 as compared to that of the water; and the object of all sewer- 
 age work should be to dispose of the noxious matter so that 
 at least it may do no harm, if, indeed, it be not made useful, 
 and to restore the water to a state approximating purity. 
 
 Cultivated land is the natural, as it is the best, practicable 
 medium for the purification of the noxious matters which pol- 
 lute the waters of sewage. 
 
 Land of suitable soil, properly prepared, with the environ- 
 ments of locality and climate favorable, affords, to judicious 
 use, all of the essential conditions under which the chemical 
 changes necessary for the purification of sewage waters take 
 place, in the most presentable form for the purpose, that we 
 can hope to find in practice. 
 
 The Action of Soil and Air. 
 
 The immediate object to be held in view is to prevent decom- 
 position or arrest fermentation of the organic matters contained 
 in the sewage, and thus forestall the development of organic 
 germs, or the conditions under which they may be developed, 
 and the giving off of foul odors. 
 
 Moisture to saturation being an essential condition to this 
 process of decomposition or fermentation, and subsequent 
 
30 
 
 development, the removal of such excessive moisture deprives 
 the matter of the environment necessary to the baneful action. 
 
 And again, the action of the air upon the particles of matter 
 is essential to the rapid change which it is desired to produce, 
 and dispersion or separation of these particles is essential to 
 the free access of the air. 
 
 In applying sewage to land, then, under the conditions and 
 in the manner heretofore spoken of as most favorable to a suc- 
 cessful issue, the exact conditions are produced which best 
 admit of those natural actions which we want to help along; 
 the putrescible particles are arrested in their course or adhere 
 to the granules of earth which absorb the moisture from them, 
 thus arresting decomposition, and hold them subject to the 
 action of the air, thus effecting their oxidation; and finally, 
 vegetation afterwards assimilates the resultant matters, and so 
 the change becomes complete. 
 
 Conditions Essential to Success. 
 
 From these considerations we see at once that conditions 
 essential to the efficiency of this mode of disposing of sewage 
 are a free, absorbing, and well aerated soil, or, at least, in each 
 case, an application of sewage not in excess of the capacity of 
 the soil, freely and promptly to absorb or take into its pores 
 the liquid and suspended solid matters, without resulting in 
 complete saturation and without leaving a considerable scum 
 or precipitate on the surface, at least a fair depth to the soil, 
 and such under-drainage, natural or artificial, as will promptly 
 lead away superfluous moisture and produce aeration of the 
 soil; and, finally, cultivation of the soil and plant growth 
 thereon at least annually on at not distant intervals. 
 
 Some Authorities. 
 
 As I have before written, this question of sewage disposal 
 has attracted a great deal of attention in England, and has 
 been the subject of a number of practical and scientific investi- 
 gations and inquiries, carried out under authority of law, or 
 under the patronage or guidance of societies of arts or science. 
 
Without exception, so far as my examination goes, and I 
 have diligently traced the course of these inquiries in the 
 original reports or publications, wherever the question of the 
 disposal of sewage has been the one at issue and it has been 
 fairly met, the conclusion arrived at by such inquiries has been 
 either unqualifiedly in favor of irrigation in all cases where 
 possible, or in all cases where convenient. 
 
 I have been unable to find one authoritative verdict against 
 it. Differences of opinion are only in the degree of favor 
 shown it, or as to the necessity of precipitating the solid matter 
 before using the liquid on the land, or as to the area of land 
 necessary for a fixed amount of sewage, and as to the economy 
 of the plan of disposal taking into account the high price of 
 land and other complicating circumstances. 
 
 Land the Proper Purifier. 
 
 I present here a few of the many unqualified decisions upon 
 which the views I have advanced have been founded. Selecting 
 only those which come from some authoritative or specially 
 high source, I remark that individual opinions of civil engineers, 
 sanitarians, chemists of high standing, and town authorities 
 might be quoted by the chapter, which coincide with them. 
 
 First come some authoritative opinions as to the efficiency 
 of irrigation as a means of disposal of sewage. 
 
 The Sewage of Towns Commission. 
 
 The Sewage of Towns Commissioners of England in their 
 first report (1858) showed that they considered that the irriga- 
 tion of land (in some cases supplemented by other processes) 
 was the best means of preventing the pollution of streams by 
 sewage. 
 
 And in their third report (1865), p. 3, they state in the most 
 emphatic terms that " the right way to dispose of town sewage 
 " is to apply it continually to land, and it is only by such 
 " application that the pollution of rivers can be avoided." (Cor- 
 field, "Treatment and Utilization of Sewage," p. 231.) 
 
32 
 
 The First Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 The First Rivers Pollution Commissioners, in their third 
 report, submit the following as a conviction arrived at by them 
 after their extensive and thorough inquiry into the subject, 
 " that the right way to dispose of town sewage is to apply it 
 " continually to land, and it is only by such application that 
 " the pollution of rivers can be avoided." 
 
 The Local Government Board Sewage Committee. 
 
 The Committee of the Local Government Board on Sewage 
 Disposal, in their report of 1876, indorse the above conclusion 
 of the Rivers' Pollution Commission in favor of irrigation, say- 
 ing : " They (the conclusions) have as much value now as at 
 the time when made " (p. 1 16). And as one of their own con- 
 victions they say, "that town sewage can best and most 
 " cheaply be disposed of and purified by the process of land 
 " irrigation for agricultural purposes, when local conditions 
 " are favorable to its application " (p. xiii of report). 
 
 Ex. Com. Society of Arts Conference, 1876. 
 
 The Executive Committee of the Society of Arts Confer- 
 ence, in summing up the results which seemed to them to have 
 been established by that extended and interesting inquiry and 
 discussion, give precedence to irrigation as the best means of 
 purifying sewage, in the following words : 
 
 " (i) In certain localities, where land at a reasonable price can 
 " be procured with favorable natural gradients, with soil of a suitable 
 " quality and in sufficient quantity, a sewage farm, if properly con- 
 " ducted, is apparently the best method of disposing of water-carried 
 " sewage." (Jour. Soc. of Arts, vol. xxiv, p. 737, June 16, 1876.) 
 
 In 1862 a committee was appointed by resolution of Parlia- 
 ment to examine this matter, take testimony, and report. It 
 was called the " Select Committee on the Sewage of Towns." 
 The conclusions arrived at by this committee are so very 
 instructive and pointed that I present them entire : 
 
 " i. The evidence proves that sewage contains the elements of 
 " every crop which is grown. 
 
33 
 
 " 2. That as compared with solid manure there are advantages in 
 " the application of sewage manure to land. 
 
 " 3. The evidence proves that town sewage contains a large amount 
 " of heat, which in itself is beneficial in stimulating vegetation. 
 
 "4. The evidence further proves that one ton (224 gallons) of 
 " average town sewage contains an amount of manure which, if ex- 
 " tracted and dried, would be worth a little over 2d., taking Peruvian 
 " guano (at us. per ton as the standard). 
 
 "6. A judicious use of town sewage permanently improves land. 
 
 "7. Sewage may be applied to common grass, Italian rye-grass, 
 " and also to roots and grain crops with great advantage, dressings 
 " with sewage hastening vegetation. 
 
 " 8. Sewage-grown grass has a great effect in increasing the quan- 
 11 tity and richness of the milk of cows, as well as improving the con- 
 " dition of the cattle, which prefer sewaged grass to all others. 
 
 " 9. The earth possesses the power of absorbing from sewage all 
 " the manure which it contains, if the dressings in volume are pro- 
 " portioned to the depth and quality of the soil. 
 
 " 10. Those who use sewage should have full control over it, that 
 " they may apply it when and in what quantities they may require it. 
 
 " ii. Heavy dressings of sewage (8,000 to 9,000 tons per acre), 
 " are wasteful ; less dressings (500 to 2,000 tons per acre), when more 
 " carefully applied, produce better results. The enormous dressings 
 " recommended by some witnesses would be agriculturally useless, as 
 " the sewage would flow over and off the surface unchanged. 
 
 " 12. When the sewage of our cities, towns, and villages is utilized 
 " to the best advantage over suitable areas, little or no imported or 
 " manufactured manures would be required in such districts. 
 
 " 13. Sewage may be applied with advantage to every description 
 " of soil which is naturally or artificially drained. 
 
 "14. The most profitable returns, as in the case of all other 
 " manures, will be obtained when sewage is judiciously applied to the 
 " best class of soils. 
 
 "15. Sewage may be advantageously applied to land throughout 
 " the entire year. 
 
 " 1 6. Some matters used in manufactures which enter town sewers, 
 " such as waste acids, would be in themselves injurious if applied to 
 " vegetation ; but bearing as they do so small a proportion to the 
 " entire volume of sewage into which they are turned, they are ren- 
 " dered harmless. 
 
 " 17. Fresh sewage at the outfall of the sewers, even in the hot- 
 " test weather, is very slightly offensive ; and if applied to the land in 
 " this state in such dressings as can at once be absorbed by the earth, 
 " fear of nuisance need not be felt, as the soil possesses the power to 
 " deodorise and separate from liquids all the manure which they 
 " contain. 
 
 " 1 8. Large dressings and an overtaxed soil may pollute surface 
 " streams, subsoils, and shallow wells. 
 
 " 19. Solid manure cannot be manufactured from town sewage 
 " with commercially profitable results." 
 
34 
 
 The Massachusetts State Board of Health. 
 
 The Massachusetts State Board of Health, at the close of 
 a most extended report on the whole sewage question, cover- 
 ing upwards of four hundred pages, made after careful research 
 by men of ability one of whom, Dr. C. F. Folsom, made 
 an extended trip to Europe for the purpose of studying the 
 question advance, as a primary recommendation, the follow- 
 ing : 
 
 " I. That no city or town shall be allowed to discharge sewage 
 " into any watercourse or pond, without first purifying it according to 
 " the best process at present known, and which consists in irriga- 
 tion," etc. * * * * * * 
 
 " VI. That irrigation be adopted, at first experimentally, in those 
 " places where some process of purification of sewage is necessary ; 
 " and that cities and towns be authorized by law to take such land 
 " as may be necessary for the purpose." 
 
 And they say, before advancing this recommendation, that : 
 
 " In public institutions, prisons, asylums, etc., it is our opinion 
 " that the sewage can be utilized and purified by irrigation to great 
 " advantage, and this disposal of it should be made when the land 
 " can be got." 
 
 The First Rivers Pollution Commission, in their report, 
 1867, said : 
 
 " Sewage interception is always practical. Where it can be applied 
 " fresh to land there is least nuisance, and least cost to the rate 
 " payers. ******* N O arrangements for treating 
 " sewage are satisfactory, except its. direct application to land for agri- 
 " cultural purposes." 
 
 Speaking of this opinion, Dr. Folsom writes : 
 
 " This statement may fairly be taken as the result of twenty-five 
 "years' experience in England" (that is, previous to 1867); "and 
 " the 'official opinion,' if the term may be used, has not changed 
 " since that time." (Down to 1876.) * * * * "Noauthori- 
 " tative body, so far as I have been able to learn, has declared itself 
 " as fully satisfied with any other process for the purification of sew- 
 " age than that of irrigation." (Kept. Mass. State Bd. of H., 1876, 
 p. 299.) 
 
 Sanitary Influence of a Sewage Farm. 
 
 Lands irrigated with sewage are not productive of sickness 
 to the residents upon them or in their neighborhood, as is 
 
35 
 
 attested by the following evidence, culled from a great mass 
 to the same effect, scattered through many official documents, 
 and, so far as I have been able to find, there is no authorita- 
 tive evidence to the contrary. 
 
 The First Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 The Rivers Pollution Commissioners, in their first report, 
 say: 
 
 " We do not recommend irrigation for the abatement of the town 
 " sewage nuisance without having made ample inquiry into any risk 
 " to health which may be incurred by the establishment of sewage 
 " meadows in the neighborhood of towns. Such inquiries have been 
 * made at Edinburgh, Croydon, Norwood, and Barking, where irri- 
 ' gation has been carried on long enough and, near Edinburgh, at 
 ' least, in a sufficiently careless manner to have certainly developed 
 ' whatever elements of mischief may be inherent in the practice. 
 ' Nowhere have we found instances of ill health that are properly 
 ' attributable to malaria or other causes due to irrigation." 
 
 Dr. Littlejohn, Medical Officer of Health to Edinburgh, in 
 evidence before the Commission, said he entertained a preju- 
 dice against the maintenance of sewage meadows so near the 
 city, but that he had not been able to connect any ill health 
 of the city with the meadows as its cause. 
 
 Professor Christison, President of the Royal Society of 
 Edinburgh, speaking of these meadows, in an address at the 
 meeting of the Association for the Encouragement of Social 
 Science at Edinburgh, in October, 1863, said : 
 
 " Many years ago my own prejudices were all against the meadows; 
 " I have been compelled to surrender them. I am satisfied that 
 " neither typhus, nor enteric fever, nor dysentery, nor cholera, is to 
 " be encountered in or around them, whether in epidemic or non- 
 " epidemic seasons, more than in any other agricultural district of 
 " the neighborhood." 
 
 He then gives certain facts ascertained by his investigation 
 of the subject, upon which he has bcised his conclusion, and 
 says : " I think it right, in reference to the late introduction of 
 " the Craigentinny system of irrigation into the vicinity of 
 " other large towns, that these precise facts should be known." 
 
 In 1870, this Dr. Christison writes : " I have nothing either 
 
36 
 
 "to add to or subtract from the above quotation from my 
 "Social Science address in 1863." 
 
 Then follows a mass of other evidence of like import from 
 men competent to observe closely and draw valuable conclu- 
 sions, that was collected by the Commission, from which we 
 are bound to conclude that they could have come to no other 
 conclusion. 
 
 The Second Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 The fourth report of the Rivers Pollution Commission 
 made, be it remembered, by entirely different individuals, as 
 heretofore explained, contains further evidence and expression 
 of opinion to the same point. 
 
 Dr. Littlejohn again gives testimony with respect to 
 the healthfulness of the neighborhood of the Craigentinny 
 Meadows, and after speaking of the general good health of 
 the people of Restelrig, which is surrounded by these meadows, 
 he says : 
 
 "I expected that the first part of Edinburgh (Regent Terrace 
 "and Carleton Terrace, on the Calton Hill), against which the wind 
 " blowing over these meadows impinges, would have exhibited evi- 
 " dence of infection in the shape of cholera or typhoid fever, but I 
 " have totally failed to find it so." 
 
 Speaking of the health of the soldiers at the neighboring 
 barracks, he says: " No injurious effect is produced by the 
 " meadows which is perceptible in the state of their health." 
 
 The Commission say that there is no evidence of the meadows 
 producing ill health, and much to the effect that they do not 
 have any such influence. 
 
 It is to be remarked that these meadows are frequently 
 spoken of in the literature of sewage irrigation as an exam- 
 ple of very careless management, and bad arrangement, and 
 that the air in their neighborhood is oftentimes very offensive 
 to the olfactory organs. 
 
 The Commission made particular inquiry as to the health of 
 cows fed upon sewage-produced grass from these meadows as 
 well as others, and in this fourth report I find amongst other 
 
37 
 
 evidence on this point, the following from Dr. Littlejohn, the 
 medical officer of health. He says: 
 
 " The cows in Edinburgh are chiefly fed with grass that is grown 
 " on the Craigentinny Meadows. I have thought that there might 
 " be objection to feeding cows upon grass so grown, because I was of 
 " opinion that such grass might be of inferior quality; but practically 
 " I have failed to detect any bad effects resulting from the use of such 
 " grass." 
 
 He then goes on to specify at length the character of dis- 
 eases he would have looked for, and speaks of their remarkable 
 absence, as shown by inspection and dissection of the animals, 
 closing with the following-: 
 
 " The practice of keeping cows in Edinburgh has prevailed from 
 "time immemorial. If there had been anything in the idea that 
 " sewage grass would lead indirectly to entozoic disease, it has had 
 " plenty of time to develop itself, and Edinburgh is not only the seat 
 " of a great medical school, but medical observation is carried to the 
 " highest point in Edinburgh, so that it could not fail of being detected." 
 
 Committee of the Royal Agricultural Society. 
 
 In 1879, two prizes, each of the value of one hundred 
 pounds (sterling), were offered for the best managed sewage 
 farms in England and Wales, by the Mansion House Com- 
 mittee, in connection with the London International Exhibi- 
 tion of the' Society, and these prizes were accepted by the 
 Council. 
 
 A committee, consisting of Mr. Baldwin Latham, civil 
 engineer, Clare S. Read, and Thomas H. Thursfield, was 
 appointed to examine the farms entered for the prizes, and 
 their management, and report thereon. 
 
 The report of this committee is one of great interest and 
 value, covering eighty pages octavo, closely printed matter. 
 I take one extract for presentation here, hoping to embody in 
 an appendix, at a future day, a summary of the practical 
 information contained in this and other similar papers. 
 
 In concluding, the Committee say : 
 
 " With respect to the sanitary aspect of sewage farming, the above 
 " table will show the several particulars which have been collected in 
 
38 
 
 " reference to the farms during the period they have been in opera- 
 " tion, the number of persons either living or working on the farms, 
 " the number of children residing on the farms, and the number of 
 " deaths which have occurred. 
 
 "An examination of this table will show that the rate of mortality 
 " on an average of the number of years which these farms have been 
 " in operation does not exceed three per thousand per annum. This 
 " is a very low rate, but in all probability it may not be lower 
 " than would be found in an equal number of selected lives taken 
 " from an agricultural district. The results of the sanitary inquiry 
 " show that sewage farming is not detrimental to life or health." 
 *********** 
 
 " Sewage farming is becoming an important agricultural feature in 
 "the country, there being at the present time about one hundred 
 "such farms in operation." (Jour. Royal Agricultural Soc., vol. xvi, 
 2d series, pp. 1-80.) 
 
 This last testimony and opinion is important as being of 
 recent dat'e, and the result of a systematic inquiry into the sub- 
 ject, from the agricultural standpoint. 
 
 I refrain from presenting more evidence on this point, be- 
 cause, with what is to be said hereafter about proper drainage, 
 this ought to be enough. 
 
 SOME AUTHORITIES. 
 Mr. Bailey Denton. 
 
 Mr. Bailey Denton, one of the oldest and first sanitary 
 engineers in Great Britain, in closing a series of lectures (the 
 printed reports of which cover 360 large octavo pages) delivered 
 at the Royal School of Military Engineering, at Chatham, in 
 1876, on the subject of sanitary engineering generally, draws 
 the first of twelve main conclusions in the following language : 
 
 "I. That the liquid refuse of towns, villages, hamlets, institutions, 
 "and dwellings, can only be continuously, effectually, and econom- 
 " ically cleansed and rendered legally admissible into inland rivers 
 "by application to land." (Work cited, p. 351.) 
 
 Then follows nine conclusions relating to the subject as pre- 
 sented in England by the complications of high prices of 
 lands, numerous manufactories, sewerage works already con- 
 structed, rivers already polluted which have no bearing to 
 
39 
 
 our present case here, and then we come to the eleventh con- 
 clusion, which is as follows : 
 
 "XL Land receiving sewage should be most carefully prepared to 
 "distribute it while in a fresh condition. All half and half measures 
 " result sooner or later in river pollution, and loss to the rate-payers." 
 
 And in speaking of land which is suitable for the reception 
 of sewage, he says: "Always assuming that it is naturally or 
 " artificially well underdrained." 
 
 Mr. C. N. Bazalgette. 
 
 In closing one of the most notable papers upon this Sewage 
 Question which has appeared of late years, and which was read 
 before the Institution of Civil Engineers, London, in 1877, the 
 author, Mr. Charles Normann Bazalgette, laid down as a 
 primary conclusion for the discussion of the Society, the fol- 
 lowing: "That where land can be reasonably acquired, irriga- 
 tion is the best and most satisfactorily known system for the 
 disposal of sewage." 
 
 And in the course of his paper he says : 
 
 "In broad irrigation it is not merely the surface contact of the 
 ' sewage with the soil assisted by the oxidizing influence of vegetation, 
 'which conduces to the resolution of sewage into its innocuous 
 'elements, but above all its passage through that aerated earth filter 
 'which intervenes between the surface and the subsoil (water) drain- 
 'age." (Minutes of the Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engi- 
 neers, Vol. XLIII, pp. 105-160.) 
 
 Mr. W. Crookes. 
 
 In discussing Mr. Bazalgette's paper, Mr. W. Crookes, one of 
 his principal opponents, "who, for some years, had made this 
 subject his special study," and who did not agree with Mr. B 
 in others of his conclusions, nor fully even in this one, said : 
 
 "As a process which numbers many and most zealous not to say 
 "occasionally intolerant advocates, I first refer to irrigation. No one 
 " can dispute that earth has a wonderfully deodorizing power, which 
 "increases the more finely the soil is pulverized and subdivided, and 
 " the more thoroughly it gives passage to the air. The fcecal matters 
 " and other impurities attach themselves to the surfaces of the particles 
 
40 
 
 " of earth by a kind of cohesive attraction, and in this state are readily 
 " attacked by the oxygen of the air. Their organic carbon becomes 
 "carbonic acid; their nitrogen is converted into nitrous or nitric acid, 
 "which unites with lime, magnesia, and other basic elements present." 
 
 He then goes on to speak of the unsuitableness of some kinds 
 of land, and the difficulty of securing land for this purpose in 
 many parts of England, together with the limited variety of 
 crops to which sewage waters can be advantageously applied, 
 and concludes, while admitting the efficiency and value of 
 irrigation as a process for the purification of sewage under 
 favorable circumstances, that, owing to the absence of these 
 circumstances in most cases, the method cannot be looked to 
 as one solving the sewage problem for England. 
 
 The original paper covers fifty-five closely printed octavo 
 pages, and considers the question from every standpoint, as a 
 review of the experience had and published up to that date. 
 The discussion which followed was participated in by a number 
 of engineers and scientists of good standing, the report of 
 which covers ninety similar pages ; and the correspondence on 
 the subject, appearing in the following volume, covers forty-five 
 additional pages. 
 
 The opinions quoted above fairly represent those of the 
 participants in this discussion, so far as expressed on this head 
 of irrigation, the one being outspoken in favor of irrigation as 
 a means of disposal, and as probably the chief means to be 
 looked to in the country, the other scarcely less favorable to 
 irrigation in itself, but asserting it to be inapplicable in a great 
 majority of cases in England, because of peculiar local circum- 
 stances. 
 
 Prof. W. H. Corfield. 
 
 The most complete authority on the subject of sewage 
 purification, up to the time of its publication (1871), is the 
 work of Prof. Corfield. After an exhaustive review of the 
 subject, in which he collates a vast amount of evidence from 
 practical experience, a reading of which is most impressive, he 
 advances his chief conclusion in the following words : 
 
41 
 
 "(a) That by careful and well conducted sewage irrigation, 
 " especially with the application of moderate quantities per acre, the 
 " purification of the whole liquid refuse of a town is practically per- 
 " feet, and has been insured in cases where it was not at all the object 
 "of the agriculturist; and that it is the only process known by which 
 "that purification can be effected on a large or on a small scale." (p. 
 270.) 
 
 And at the end of a chapter on the "Influence of Sewage 
 Farming on the Public Health," after adducing very interest- 
 ing and pointed evidence to the effect that the health of people 
 living on and near sewage farms, so far from being bad or 
 worse than that of people in general living on agricultural 
 lands, is in notable cases better, the author says : 
 
 "We have good reason to expect that it will be found to be the 
 "case, that the utilization of the sewage of towns on the land 
 " near them, while preventing the pollution of drinking water, and 
 " the spread thereby of cholera and typhoid fever, will at the same 
 " time maintain the purity of the atmosphere around and about the 
 " town, and the result will be, especially when combined with that 
 " produced by the increased demand for labor and the more plentiful 
 "supply of food, a diminution of the general death-rate." (p. 283.) 
 
 CAUSES OF OPPOSITION TO IRRIGATION. 
 
 Where the use of sewage waters in irrigation has failed to 
 prove an efficient means of disposing of them, or of so far 
 purifying them as to render them as fit to be put into rivers as 
 the drainage waters from any highly cultivated, stocked, or 
 manured farm lands, it is asserted upon the highest authority, 
 and generally acceded to, that such result is due to one or 
 more of five causes: 
 
 The quality of sewage applied has been too great for the 
 land irrigated under the immediate and surrounding circum- 
 stances ; 
 
 The soil of the land has been radically unsuited for the pur- 
 pose, or it has not been properly prepared for such use; 
 
 The manner of application has been careless or from other 
 cause needlessly inefficient; 
 
 Sewage irrigation has been practiced on quite a large scale in England since about 
 1853, when the Rugby sewage farm was established. There are now upwards of 
 one hundred localities where towns and cities thus dispose of their drainage, and 
 the number is increasing rapidly. 
 
42 
 
 The land has been kept continuously in use for sewage 
 purification, without cultivation and growth of crops, for too 
 long a period of time; or, 
 
 The sewage itself has been exceptionally foul and full of 
 putrescible matter, and has not been treated or defecated 
 before application to the land. 
 
 These Causes Might Operate Anywhere. 
 
 The above causes of failure are such as, without proper 
 knowledge and care, are liable to recur at any point where 
 irrigation is resorted to as a means of disposal and purification 
 of sewage, and of course are to be guarded against in the 
 selection and preparation of lands and the subsequent use 
 thereof for the purpose. 
 
 I have already cited some authorities which bear on this 
 point and will only call attention to one other: Mr. Baldwin 
 Latham, an English civil engineer who has had much experi- 
 ence in sanitary work and written a work of merit on the 
 subject, at a meeting of the Association of Sanitary Engineers 
 held at Merton in 1879, speaking of the sewage disposal works 
 at Croyden, where the sewage from a town of 17,000 people is 
 put on to 28 acres of land for filtration, after the solid matter 
 in suspension has been precipitated from it in tanks, said : 
 
 " In fact, if the sewage was not seen nobody would find fault with 
 " it. The only objection he had found in treating sewage was entirely 
 " one of sentiment. When people saw sewage, or knew it was near 
 " them, they thought that there must be an offensive smell. He had 
 " never found any great nuisance arising from a sewage farm if it was 
 " only moderately well conducted." (Proceedings of the Association 
 of Sanitary Engineers, Vol. VI, p. 104.) 
 
 We should remember that it is the solid matter in suspen- 
 sion and in solution which, being allowed to stand long enough, 
 decomposes and becomes offensive; that earth is the best 
 known agent to check this decomposition; that the water is 
 the carrier, simply, of the other substances composing the sew- 
 age; that if the soil is supplied with this matter in proper 
 quantity, and is properly under drained, so that it dops not at 
 
43 
 
 . any time become water-logged, the result is simply an applica- 
 tion of the particles liable to decomposition, to their natural 
 deodorizer and disinfector earth particles there to be held, 
 deodorized and disinfected for the action of the air in the soil 
 to complete the work by oxidation. 
 
 Other Causes Peculiar to the Old Country. 
 
 In England and other parts of Europe the popular expecta- 
 tions from irrigation as a sewage treatment, has been disap- 
 pointed in a number of cases, from causes of another nature. 
 These causes being peculiar to the manner in which the sub- 
 ject was presented there, or to the social or political condition 
 of the country, are not likely to recur here, and certainly will 
 not if the subject is properly taken in hand when it should 
 be, and not put off until we have a dense population. 
 
 England is a densely populated country; and land in the 
 neighborhood of cities and towns has its prefixed uses or 
 actual or prospective value, far in excess of that which obtains 
 here. 
 
 So that it is difficult sometimes almost impossible -to get 
 sufficient land of suitable quality and favorably situated, to 
 admit of the adoption of irrigation as a means of disposal of 
 the sewage of many towns and cities in that country. 
 
 Intermittent Downward Filtration. 
 
 To avoid this embarrassment the process known as intermit- 
 tent dozvmvard filtration, whereby lands were deeply under- 
 drained and used more as filter beds than as cultivated tracts, 
 with the view of disposing of a greater quantity of sewage upon 
 the acre of land, was resorted to. It is alleged by one .school 
 of sanitarians that by this process the sewage of 1,500 people 
 can be effectively disposed of, without nuisance, upon an acre 
 of land, and it is claimed that in several places in England 
 the practice runs as high as 1,000 persons per acre. Be this 
 as it may, the principle is essentially the same as that of irri- 
 gation, with the absence, to a great extent, of the action of 
 plant gi*owth on the land, and I have found no evidence 
 
44 
 
 amongst the vast mass, pro and con, on the relative merits of 
 broad (ordinary) irrigation and intermittent downward filtra- 
 tion, which inclines my judgment in favor of the latter under 
 circumstances where land is to be had in abundance. 
 
 We must remember, then, that what is said against irriga- 
 tion as a means of disposing of sewage in England is very 
 largely on account of the difficulty of getting enough land for 
 the purpose adjacent to the cities. 
 
 Climate of England Not Favorable. 
 
 Beyond this, the climate is not such as to make artificial 
 irrigation, with any water, on a broad scale for agricultural 
 purposes, either necessary or very desirable, except for the 
 special purpose of forcing grass on meadows, and for this use 
 sewage waters are not altogether well adapted ; and, further- 
 more, English farmers are not an irrigating people, and would 
 not generally contemplate irrigation except for the necessity of 
 disposing of sewage waters. 
 
 It will be seen at once that irrigation was undertaken there 
 by reason of a motive engendered, as it were, outside of the 
 necessities of agriculture the irrigation was not demanded by 
 the agricultural classes, but owing to the necessity under which 
 the people living in towns rested, to dispose of their polluted 
 waters, some agriculturists, from time to time, have been 
 induced to undertake irrigation with sewage waters. 
 
 The Reform Movement. 
 
 Like all reforms, much more was claimed for this than it 
 justly deserved. 
 
 It was claimed that sewage contained vast amounts of fer- 
 tilizing matters, which being applied to lands would greatly 
 increase their productive powers ; that farming with sewage 
 would be exceedingly remunerative ; that the farmer should 
 pay for the privilege of using the sewage ; and, hence, it 
 would be a source of revenue to the community producing as 
 well as to the farmer using it. 
 
45 
 
 Facts that were Overlooked. 
 
 The facts (i) that there would be exceptional inconveniences 
 and expenses attending its use; (2) that the fertilizing elements, 
 although present in the sewage, were not and could not, 
 without the lapse of time and under favorable conditions, be in 
 a proper condition for assimilation as plant food; (3) that 
 more land would be required for the application of the sewage 
 as years rolled on, or, in other words, that lands should rest 
 and be cultivated without the application of sewage for a 
 season or two now and then ; (4) that all soils were not equally 
 favorable for sewage reception, and some decidedly unfavor- 
 able, requiring considerable and skillful preparation to make 
 them at all suited for such use 5(5) that more than an ordinary 
 degree of skill, judgment, faith, and care would be required in 
 the conduct of farming operations by the use of sewage ; (6) 
 that all sewage is not alike, or that sewage from some towns 
 by reason principally of the manufacturing refuse and waste 
 waters largely forming it is in its crude state unfit for applica- 
 tion to lands where cultivation is practiced, and sewage from 
 other towns contains so much solid matter, or solid matter of 
 such a character that the pores of the soil to which it applies 
 become clogged ; (7) that comparatively few crops are suitable 
 for cultivation by irrigation in the climate of England, and not 
 all of these are suitable for growth upon lands constantly 
 under irrigation with foul waters ; (8) that a very considerable 
 prejudice existed amongst the laboring population to working 
 on irrigated lands, and a greater prejudice against working on 
 lands irrigated with highly polluted waters ; (9) that a very 
 great prejudice existed against consuming the products result- 
 ing from the use of polluted waters; and finally, (10) that 
 municipal corporations cannot act to the same advantage in 
 such matters as can private individuals these facts, I say, were 
 overlooked. 
 
 Sewage not Especially Valuable in England. 
 
 Experience has shown that only under exceptionally favor- 
 able circumstances and these circumstances are many and 
 
4 6 
 
 not often rightly combined can anything more than the or- 
 dinary profit of farming be secured from the use of sewage in 
 irrigation in Great Britain ; and, hence, that the communities 
 producing the sewage cannot only not expect to derive a revenue 
 from it, but, generally speaking, must be at expense to assist 
 in handling it, in order that the farmer may be compensated 
 for the inconvenience to which he is put, or helped with the 
 extra labor necessitated by its use ; and, beyond this, it is found 
 advisable in some instances, where the available area of land 
 is restricted, or its soil not suitable, or the sewage is of a 
 specially noxious character, or for other reasons not necessary 
 here to be mentioned, to deprive the sewage waters of nearly 
 all the matter carried in suspension by them before application 
 is made to the land, thus involving the cost of works for the 
 treatment of the sewage and the expense of their maintenance 
 and operation, which, of course, falls upon the community 
 sewered. 
 
 The "Sludge" Complication. 
 
 And at this stage of the experience another sore disappoint- 
 ment, which has been general, made itself felt : It was repre- 
 sented, as an inducement to the municipalities to clarify their 
 sewage waters, that the resulting solid manure would be of 
 
 I have said that authorities generally concur in the opinion that the best way to 
 dispose of sewage is to apply it to land that irrigation per se presents the only 
 satisfactory solution of the sewage disposal problem yet arrived at, and that in all 
 cases where an outfall into a large tidal estuary, or bay, or the sea, is not afforded, 
 irrigation should undoubtedly be resorted to when land, climate, and other circum- 
 stances are favorable. I say this, notwithstanding what is written by Mr. George 
 E. Waring in his " Sanitary Drainage of Houses and Towns," in the first two pages 
 of chapter ten, from which we might infer that authorities are not in any way settled 
 upon the efficiency of any method of sewage disposal. 
 
 In the first place, it is not clear that this author includes irrigation when he says 
 that "none of these schemes have so far achieved the success claimed for them, as 
 " to gain the confidence of the engineering world at large," but that he refers 
 exclusively to the various patented devices for purifying sewage by chemical and 
 mechanical means. In the next place, I read on and find him speaking of irriga- 
 tion and the " Coventry process" as "one or two devices which seem to afford relief 
 " in the case of small villages, and especially of large or small establishments." 
 And, lastly, I take his book at his own estimate, to be found in the preface, as follows : 
 "The following chapters are not offered as of material value to such engineers 
 ' and architects as have given attention to the subject, as these would naturally 
 ' resort to the original authorities from which they have been so largely drawn. 
 ' They are addressed more especially to the average citizen and householder, and 
 ' are intended rather as an incentive to the securing of good work, than as a guide 
 " to the manner of its performance." 
 
47 
 
 sufficient market value to more than cover the expense of the 
 process, together with interest on the works. But this expecta- 
 tion also proved fallacious, as will be explained more fully in 
 the next chapter of this report ; and so it has transpired that 
 irrigation is simply a method of purifying sewage waters, 
 efficient in itself under ordinary conditions ; that sewerage is a 
 process of clearing filth from a town, and that " towns must 
 pay to be clean," and cannot make capital out of their offal, 
 at least not in England. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In closing this part of my report, I call attention to the 
 points which I have endeavored to make apparent, viz.: 
 
 That irrigation is the proper mode of disposing of sewage 
 waters. 
 
 That their proper use on properly prepared lands does not 
 produce an insanitary condition of the immediate neighbor- 
 hood. 
 
 That by proper appliances and management, the neighbor- 
 hood of a sewage irrigated field need not be even moderately 
 offensive, but will be inoffensive. 
 
 That in climates suited for irrigation at all, sewage waters 
 are valuable and ought not to be thrown away. 
 
 That opinions in older countries are almost unanimous as to 
 the above mentioned points. 
 
 As I said, in closing the last part of this report, if my con- 
 clusions are not established by evidence, it is only because I 
 have refrained from transcribing enough of the supply, or have 
 not chosen well, or have not arranged well the parts chosen. 
 
 The facts are well proven and generally admitted. 
 
WHAT SHALL BE DONE WITH SEWAGE? 
 
 PART III ARTIFICIAL TREATMENT OF SEWAGE. 
 
 FILTRATION, PRECIPITATION, PURIFICATION. 
 
 In the two preceding chapters I have briefly sketched, in 
 outline, the history of the sewage disposal problem in England 
 and other older countries. We have seen the growing evil of 
 rivers pollution, the outcry against it, the declaration that it 
 was all a myth that the waters purified themselves in running 
 a short distance the refutation of this fallacy, the fearless 
 assertion of the most eminent men of science from disinter- 
 ested motives, and in the face of the clamor of the great mon- 
 eyed classes of the country (the landlords or "rate payers," and 
 the manufacturers), that it was suicidal to put town sewage 
 and manufacturing refuse into the streams of the country ; and 
 we have seen that the outcome of authoritative inquiry into the 
 best means of disposing of sewage has repeatedly and uniformly 
 been a conclusion declaring that it should be applied to land. 
 
 In the course of this review I have referred to the fact that 
 many differences on the part of authorities were in degree only 
 of opposition to the pollution of rivers by the deposit of sew- 
 age in them, and in degree of advocacy of the application of 
 sewage to land, rather than the disputing of the opposition to 
 the one or the advocacy of the other measure altogether, and 
 I have spoken of means which, it had heen asserted, reconciled 
 the disputants. It remains now to consider these means. 
 
 The agitation against the practice of pollution of the rivers 
 with sewage and manufacturing offal, taken up, as it was, by 
 7 
 
50 
 
 some of the most powerful associations and most accom- 
 plished individuals of England, was a very serious matter to 
 many large moneyed interests in the country. The questions 
 were carried into the Courts, and in most cases decided in 
 favor of the plaintiffs, and injunctions were issued restraining 
 the town, or manufactory, as the case might be, from dumping 
 its sewage into the stream. 
 
 THE LAND DIFFICULTY. 
 
 A way out of the difficulty was eagerly sought. In many 
 cases it was impossible to get sufficient suitable land properly 
 located for irrigation. 
 
 Cheltenham, Gloucester, in 1870, paid about $400 per acre 
 for 131 acres of land, quite unsuitable in soil, upon which to 
 run its sewage, and this was not more than one fourth as much 
 land as was needed. 
 
 Bedford, Bedfordshire, pays $25 per year per acre for the use 
 of land upon which to put sewage. 
 
 Bishops Stortford, Hertfordshire, paid about $340 per acre 
 for ninety-seven acres for its sewage farm, and has to pump 
 the sewage up to it. 
 
 Banbury, Oxfordshire, acting under the impulse of an 
 injunction and order restraining the town from polluting the 
 River Cherwell, in 1864, paid about $1,275 P er acre f r IO O 
 acres upon which to put its sewage, and also has to pump the 
 liquid on to the land. 
 
 Kendal, Westmoreland, in 1873, paid about $1,260 per acre 
 for sixty-five acres upon which to dispose of its sewage. 
 
 Chorley, Lancashire, under an order of the Court of 
 Chancery, to abstain from polluting the waters of the River 
 Yarrow, in 1867, P a id at the rate of about $400 per acre for 
 eighty-seven acres and about $540 per acre for forty-six acres, 
 composing its sewage irrigation farm. 
 
 West Derby, Lancashire, in 1875, paid at the rate of about 
 $730 per acre for 207 acres upon which to dispose of its sew- 
 age. (Robinson & Mellis, p. 89, et seq.) 
 
And so this list might be run out to almost a hundred 
 places which, within the past fifteen or twenty years, most of 
 them within the past ten years, have been forced by order of 
 the Courts or of the Conservancy Boards, or by public opinion, 
 to purchase lands at figures ranging from $300 to $1,500 per 
 acre, upon which to utilize sewage in irrigation. 
 
 At Croydon, six years after irrigation with sewage began, 
 land in the immediate vicinity of the farm where it was used 
 had increased from 250 to 1,000 per acre. This fact shows 
 two things the immense price which has to, be paid for land 
 near the cities for irrigation, and hence the great drawback to 
 the general introduction of this method of disposing of sewage ; 
 and the fact that the sewage farm could not have been an 
 objectionable neighbor, otherwise the land would certainly not 
 have increased so in value alongside of it. (Folsom, p. 341.) 
 
 It is no wonder, then, that there has been great opposition 
 to the adoption of irrigation, for in fact in many instances, as 
 is alleged, it is simply impossible to get land enough .for the 
 larger cities without pumping the sewage a number of miles, 
 necessitating great expense for outfall and power works and 
 annual charges for cost of operation. 
 
 Taking these facts into consideration, and the other circum- 
 stances that contribute towards making a sewage irrigation 
 farm a troublesome and not profitable property for a municipal 
 corporation to handle in England, it is no wonder that many 
 devices and processes have come to public notice, the owners 
 or advocates of which claiming for them the power to do away 
 with all the embarrassments of the problems of sewage disposal. 
 In fact such schemes may be numbered at least by hundreds. 
 
 FILTRATION. 
 
 Filtration was at first alleged to be the panacea for all evil 
 caused by sewage waters ; and forthwith artificial filters of all 
 conceivable patterns and compositions were designed and 
 experimented with. There was "upward filtration," where the 
 liquid was forced upward through filters, leaving its heavier 
 
52 
 
 suspended matters below, to be removed as " sludge ;" and 
 there was " lateral filtration," where the filter was upright, as a 
 partition or wall, and the liquid thus passed through from one 
 tank to another ; and, again, " downward filtration," where the 
 liquid passed downward by gravity through the filter bed. 
 And these filter beds were composed of every conceivable 
 material and combination of materials, ranging from gravel, 
 coarse and fine, through coarse and fine sand, earths of various 
 kinds, bone dust, wood charcoal, animal charcoal, thin boards 
 with very small perforations, and many others~besides. 
 
 The first Rivers Pollution Commission tried some experi- 
 ments upon the filtration of sewage through various soils, and 
 they reported, in 1868, "that the process of filtration through 
 gravel, sand, chalk, or certain kinds of soil, if properly carried 
 out, is the most effective means of purifying sewage." (Rep. 
 Riv. Pol. Com., 1868, p. 60.) 
 
 But this meant filtration through lands, and the fact is, as 
 experience has proved also, that filtration cannot be "properly 
 carried out" in an artificial filter, because it costs too much to 
 make and maintain one large enough, so that the filter must 
 be a natural one a piece of land of such soil and subsoil 
 composition as to be favorable, and either naturally or artifi- 
 cially well underdrained ; and the process thus carried out is 
 of course but one step that of having a plant growth on the 
 land removed from irrigation. 
 
 The advocates of artificial filter beds for the purification, or 
 the clarification even, of sewage, have long ago abandoned 
 their ground, and filtration now finds its place as a sort of con- 
 centration of irrigation. 
 
 The Intermittent doivnward filtration, heretofore spoken of, 
 being the application of sewage to deeply drained land, in the 
 propo'rtion of ten to twelve times as great a quantity to the 
 acre as in ordinary irrigation practice, at the sacrifice of crop 
 growth and all but occasional cultivation of the soil, is of this 
 character, and it is advocated chiefly as a substitute for irriga- 
 tion when lands cannot be obtained in sufficient quantity for 
 
53 
 
 the latter, and as a supplement to irrigation for the purpose of 
 disposing of the sewage when the crops do not need to be 
 watered. 
 
 PRECIPITATION. 
 
 The well known properties of alum, lime, and alumina, 
 whereby solid matters carried in suspension in water are made 
 to settle to the bottom when the fluid is in a moderate state of 
 rest, were long ago availed of to extract the noxious matters 
 from sewage, and a number of processes based upon the use of 
 these precipitants, singly and in combination, in various pro- 
 portions with each other, and a host of still other substances, 
 have been devised, patented, and tried the most of them only 
 to be discarded as worthless or too expensive in application. 
 
 Some, however, appear to have given a measure of satisfac- 
 tion under conditions where suitable land could not be obtained 
 for irrigation, so that, without intending to specify any as very 
 much better than the others, it may be well to review those 
 which I find most prominently mentioned as having been 
 submitted to practical trial, although it is alleged by some 
 authorities that these all have failed or are too expensive in 
 application for general use, where it is desired to so far purify 
 the sewage as to fit the effluent water for admission into any 
 inland stream. 
 
 The Coventry Process, so called because of its adoption at 
 the town of Coventry, in Warwickshire, employs salts of 
 alumina as the chief precipitating agent. 
 
 At Coventry about 2,ooo,opo gallons per day of sewage, 
 "extremely foul, and colored by refuse dye, etc., thrown into the 
 sewers from numerous silk dyeing works, varnish works, etc." 
 are treated by this process. 
 
 Four tanks built into the ground are used, the sewage con- 
 stantly flowing through three of them, while the other is being 
 cleaned. The sewage is first screened, to take out large floating 
 solid matter, then treated to a dose of a solution of sulphate 
 of alumina, prepared in a cheap way by treating shale with 
 
54 
 
 sulphuric acid ; then it receives a charge of milk of lime, and, 
 having dropped its solid matter in the tanks, the clarified 
 water escaping from the tanks over weirs "in a fair state of 
 purity," is then conveyed to filter beds, covering in all nine 
 acres of land, where it is filtered, the beds being used alter- 
 nately, and the water finally passes into the river Shurburne. 
 
 The Native Guano, or A, B, C Process, consists mainly in 
 the use of alum, blood, and clay as precipitants, the exact 
 receipt embodying also magnesia, chloride of sodium, animal 
 and vegetable charcoal, and some other ingredients, and the 
 manner of application being in tanks. 
 
 It has been tried at eight or ten large towns and cities, with 
 varying success so far as economy and efficiency are con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The Phosphate Process consists in the use of phosphate of 
 alumina and lime as precipitants; the former being a good 
 fertilizer, it increases the value of the resulting "sludge" for 
 manure and facilitates its sale. 
 
 The phosphate of alumina is mixed with sulphuric acid to 
 make it soluble, after which it is added to the sewage, together 
 with a certain quantity of lime to aid the precipitation. 
 
 This process, also, has had its applications, and there are 
 accounts of its success. 
 
 Then there are a large number of processes which are not so 
 prominently mentioned, but which have had their applica- 
 tions, and still have their advocates, as follows : 
 
 r 
 
 Bird's Process employs " sulphated clay," so called, being a 
 mixture of sulphuric acid with common clay. 
 
 Stotkerfs Process employs lime, sulphate of alumina, sul- 
 phate of zinc, and charcoal. 
 
 Hilles Process employs lime, tar, salts of magnesium, and 
 the products arising from the calcination of lime. 
 
 Collins Process employs lime, carbon (a waste product of 
 
55 
 
 prussiate of potash manufacture), house ashes, soda, and per- 
 chloride of iron. 
 
 Holderis Process employs sulphate of iron, lime, coal dust, 
 and clay. 
 
 Fuldds Process employs, principally, lime and sulphate of 
 soda. 
 
 Ely the s Process employs superphosphate of lime with mag- 
 nesia and lime. 
 
 Whittread's Process employs a mixture of dicalcic and mono- 
 calcic phosphates and a little milk of lime, the object being to 
 recover in the manure the whole of the phosphoric acid. 
 
 Campbell's Process employs phosphate of lime in a soluble 
 state which is applied to the sewage, and then precipitated by 
 a further addition of lime. 
 
 Hansons Process employs lime, black ash, and red haema- 
 tite treated with sulphuric acid. 
 
 Goodalls Process employs lime, animal carbon, ashes, and 
 an iron liquor called sesqui-persulphate of iron. 
 
 The Lime Process is about the oldest method of artificially 
 treating sewage waters. At first lime alone was used, but now 
 some other ingredients are sometimes added. 
 
 It has been tried in more places than any other process, and 
 it may be said of it that whereas it fails to purify the sewage, 
 it is a good clarifier and perhaps fits the waters to be purified 
 by application to land about as well as any of the more com- 
 plicated manipulations, but is complained of as not a good 
 deodorizer during the operation, and as forming too much sludge 
 of a low manurial value. 
 
 These are a few of a good many processes which may be 
 found quite fully described in the reports of the Rivers Pollu- 
 tion Commission, in special papers brought before the Society 
 
56 
 
 of Arts, the Institution cf Civil Engineers, and the Associa- 
 tion of Sanitary Engineers, and brieflly described or alluded 
 to in the works of Corfield, Robinson, and Melliss, the report 
 of Dr. Folsom, and elsewhere. 
 
 The record of their practical application at many different 
 cities, towns, and burroughs under varying circumstances, the 
 discussions of their merits which have occurred before the various 
 societies mentioned, and the reports on their results made by 
 various committees, commissions, etc., are, to say the least, 
 decidedly confusing. 
 
 Taking them all together, I find it generally held by the 
 authorities, and in fact most all who participate in the discus- 
 sions, except those interested in the patent rights to the pro- 
 cesses, or who want to adopt some such method of preparing 
 sewage water for admission into a stream, to save a greater 
 outlay for some other works, so far as I am able to judge, that 
 they do clarify the liquid precipitate the solid matter held in 
 suspension; that some are decidedly more economical than 
 others in the accomplishment of this result ; that some, a few, 
 perhaps, accomplish more than a mere clarification, and remove 
 matters held in solution; that economy here also is variable; 
 and that none of them so far purify the water as should render 
 it admissible into a stream; but that it can readily be so 
 purified by filtration through or use in irrigation on a small 
 area of land after such clarification. 
 
 SOME AUTHORITIES. 
 
 Certain it is that the artificial treatment of sewage by either 
 filtration, or chemical or mechanical precipitation, fails to 
 purify the water and leaves it in a condition dangerous to be 
 taken into the human system, even in a most diluted form. 
 
 First Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 The First Rivers Pollution Commission reported: "As 
 "applied to sewage, disinfectants do not disinfect and filter 
 "beds do not filter.* Both attempts have been costly failures." 
 
 * This applies to artificial filter beds and not to natural filtration through lands. 
 
57 
 
 Sewage of Towns Commission. 
 
 The Sewage of Towns Commission reported that artificial 
 filtration had been given up because "the filters choke imme- 
 "diately and become impervious to the passage of the liquid." 
 
 Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 The Rivers Pollution Commission in 1858 and the Local 
 Government Board in 1876 speak favorably of the deodorizing 
 and clarify action of several precipitating processes, saying 
 in substance that no nuisance in the way of odor arises from 
 their proper application, nor does the effluent water offend the 
 nostrils or eye, but they deny the efficiency of any such pro- 
 cess in the way of the purification of the water. 
 
 Executive Committee of the Society of Arts Conference. 
 
 The Executive Committee of the Society of Arts Conference 
 on Sewage, reported that by some of the precipitation processes, 
 combined with filtration, "a sufficiently purified effluent can be 
 " produced for discharge, without injurious results, into water- 
 " courses and rivers, of sufficient magnitude for its considerable 
 " dilution ; and that for many towns, where land is not readily 
 "obtainable at a moderate price, those particular processes 
 " afford the most suitable means of disposing of water-carried 
 " sewage." 
 
 This is the most favorable opinion I have found of these 
 chemical processes, coming from a source other than individual, 
 such as I have hitherto mentioned ; and even this opinion is 
 not to be ranked with those of the Government Commissioners 
 appointed for that purpose, one of which is as follows : 
 
 Second Rivers Pollution Commission. 
 
 The Rivers Pollution Com nission, of which Doctor Frank- 
 land was at the head as expert chemist, in their report of 1874 
 (the sixth), under the head of "T/ie possibility of rendering 
 polluted water again wholesome' (p. 427), say : 
 
 " Of all the processes which have been proposed for the purification 
 " of sewage, or of water polluted by excrementitious matters, there is 
 
58 
 
 " not one which is sufficiently effective to warrant the use, for dietetic 
 "purposes, of water which has been so contaminated." 
 
 This opinion, of course, applies to artificial processes only. 
 The conclusion of this Commission, with respect to the efficiency 
 of irrigation as a process of purifying sewage, is elsewhere 
 cited. 
 
 Dr. Folsom. 
 
 Dr. Folsom, who examined the subject personally for the 
 Massachusetts Board of Health in 1875, reported as follows: 
 
 " In France and Germany the precipitating processes have been 
 " given up as inefficient. In England a new successful patent process 
 " is hawked about every few months, to be soon found only an addi- 
 'tion to the list of failures; and the public is bewildered by the maze 
 'of conflicting statements and propositions. In some cases, how- 
 ' ever, cities have been driven to the precipitating process because 
 1 they could not get sufficient land to deal with their sewage in any 
 'other way." (Work cited, p.- 333.) 
 
 This opinion is worthy of all credence, considering the 
 source it comes from and the disinterested attitude occupied 
 by the authority. 
 
 Bailey Denton. 
 
 In concluding this branch of the subject, I present extracts 
 from the Lectures of Mr. Denton, to which I have before 
 referred. They are selected and arranged so as to give an 
 idea in a small space of the view this authority takes of the 
 subject. 
 
 Until recently the laws of England required the liquid sew- 
 age of towns to be conducted into rivers, etc. : 
 
 " Under the altered state of the laws towns must abstain from so 
 " discharging until it has been freed 'from all foul and noxious mat- 
 " ' ters ' by the best practicable and reasonably available means." 
 (Bailey Denton, Lectures, p. 248.) 
 
 In this respect towns are to be divided into three classes: 
 
 I. Seaboard towns. 
 
 II. Towns bordering tidal rivers or estuaries. 
 III. Towns adjacent to inland rivers and streams. 
 
59 
 
 Discharging into the Sea. 
 
 " The possibility of discharging sewage into the sea unobjectionably 
 " only exists where the shore is not used for bathing or for recreation, 
 ''and where the town does not extend down to the water's edge." 
 *********** 
 
 Thus it is often the case " that, even in seaboard towns, the sew- 
 " age, before it is discharged, should not only be clarified, but that 
 " everything should be done within reasonable limits to secure a con- 
 
 " stant outflow, independently of the tide." 
 
 ***********. 
 
 " One or the other of the tried chemical precipitation processes 
 " will effect the required clarification of the sewage of this class of 
 " towns where land cannot be obtained." (Work cited, pp. 177-178.) 
 
 Discharging into Tidal Rivers and Estuaries. 
 
 "A considerable number of towns in this country are situated on 
 " the shores of tidal waters, some of which reach far inland. The 
 " difficulty of satisfactorily dealing with sewage which can only thus 
 " be carried to the sea by the ebb and flow of the tide is very con- 
 " siderable." 
 
 " The banks or shores of these waters generally consist of mud, 
 " and are exposed to the atmosphere for a sufficient time during each 
 " tide to give off in extremely hot weather an intolerable stench, 
 " which is necessarily made worse by mixture with sewage." 
 
 " In dealing with towns on tidal rivers it becomes the duty of the 
 " engineer to treat the liquid refuse differently from the way in which 
 " he would dispose of the sewage of either a town directly on the 
 " seaboard or situated on an inland river." 
 
 " The most rational view of the matter is, that while the sewage 
 " discharged from seaboard towns directly into the sea may be simply 
 " clarified, that which is discharged into tidal rivers, the waters of 
 " which are never used as sources of potable waters, should be 
 " cleansed of its putrescible matters up to a certain standard, which 
 " though less stringent than that applied to inland rivers, should be 
 " sufficiently high to prevent its causing the nuisance of which I have 
 " spoken." * " These standards, 
 
 " it is declared, can be reached by several of the processes which I 
 " shall hereafter explain." (Work cited, p. 179.) 
 
 Discharging into Rivers far Inland. 
 
 " It is not only reasonable, but positively necessary, that considera- 
 " tions altogether different from those ruling in the case of seaboard 
 " towns should determine the mode of disposing of the sewage of 
 " inland towns. 
 
 " The effluent water in such cases should, indeed, be ' freed of all 
 "'foul or noxious matter' (Public Health Act, 1875, clause 17), 
 " without compromise, and the law should be exercised without hesi- 
 " tation. 
 
6o 
 
 " The influence of the opposition of manufacturers upon the past 
 " and present governments has resulted in a temporary respite, and 
 " some ground has been lost by temporizing which had previously 
 " been gained by slow and certain steps ; but when saying this it is 
 " impossible to evade the conclusion that the perfect and permanent 
 " cleansing of sewage will be sooner or later insisted upon by every 
 " voice in the country, and by no persons more decidedly than by 
 " the manufacturers themselves." (Work cited, pp. 180-182.) 
 
 Disposal of the Sewage of Villages and Hamlets. 
 
 " The remarks upon the disposal of liquid refuse of towns apply 
 " equally to villages. * * * * It has been taken for granted 
 " by most persons simply because the point has not been thor- 
 " oughly discussed that if solid refuse (kitchen and shop refuse, 
 " not sewage matter) is disposed of in some approved manner, very 
 " small places may turn their sewage water into the nearest water- 
 " course. This impression will have but a transient existence, though 
 " the money now being spent in temporizing with difficulties and in 
 " endeavoring to evade the law is very considerable* I feel bound 
 to assert, though, * * * that there is no other way of satisfac- 
 torily disposing of the liquid refuse of any community than by a 
 common water-tight sewer, which shall collect and discharge it for 
 appropriate treatment. This cannot be too well understood, for 
 the precise mode of disposing of liquid sewage becomes compara- 
 " tively easy directly it is determined to collect and deliver it at a 
 " given point." (Work cited, pp. 182-183.) 
 
 As elsewhere noted, this authority favors irrigation where 
 land enough can be had ; intermittent downward filtration, 
 through land prepared for the purpose, where sufficient land 
 for irrigation can not be had ; and the precipitating process 
 where the land available is still more restricted, or not suitable 
 for the other mentioned methods of treatment. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 It is unnecessary to pursue this branch of the subject 
 further at present. The conclusions to be drawn are : 
 
 That if it is advisable to clarify precipitate the solid mat- 
 ter held in suspension the sewage at your institution, it can 
 be done, and with the detailed records of ample experience at 
 command to guide in the work ; but that we can not purify 
 the waters as they should be purified, by any of these precip- 
 itation processes alone, unless we should be more successful 
 than the best authorities say such work has been in older 
 countries. 
 
WHAT IS TO BE DONE WITH SEWAGE? 
 
 PART IV THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASYLUM SEWAGE. 
 
 SHALL THE SEWAGE BE CARRIED AWAY ? 
 
 And now for the application to the case in hand, of the facts 
 and conclusions brought forward in the review of the Sewage- 
 disposal question which I have presented in the preceding 
 three chapters. 
 
 It has been proposed to conduct the asylum sewage (i) to 
 the San Joaquin River, and dispose of it by mingling vvith the 
 river waters ; or, failing in sufficient money to carry out this 
 work, (2) to put it in Stockton Slough at some point west of 
 the city limits ; or, as an alternative, (3) to extend the North 
 Street canal to the river, and use it as an outfall for sewage at 
 some point undefined ; and I am called upon to say whether or 
 not it is advisable for the Board of Directors to adopt either 
 one of these outfalls and construct works in accordance there- 
 with. 
 
 THE SANITARY ASPECT OF THE QUESTION. 
 
 The San Joaquin as an Outfall. 
 
 With respect to the first proposition turning the sewage 
 into the San Joaquin River I am by no means satisfied that 
 the deposit of the comparatively small amount of fouled liquid 
 which your institution produces, into the river, would pollute 
 its waters so as to be noticeable ; and were the question of no 
 broader scope than one of policy or expediency on this foot- 
 ing, I would not be prepared, in the interest of undefiled river 
 waters alone/ to advise against the act. 
 
62 
 
 But the question could not by any one be thus easily dis- 
 missed, for the deposit of this sewage in the river would be but 
 the beginning of other acts of the same kind, and greater in 
 degree, which quite likely would constitute a nuisance that 
 soon would be cause for complaint by the casual observer even. 
 In point of fact, the deposit of any such foul water in a running 
 stream of this size, is held by the great bulk of scientific 
 authority to materially pollute its waters, under ordinary cir- 
 cumstances, as I have already shown. So that even if the 
 result of the deposit of the asylum sewage in the San Joaquin 
 River was not noticeably objectionable, the justification of it 
 on that ground would be a mere subterfuge, liable at any time 
 to be laid bare, should any competent person take hold of the 
 matter with the view of stopping such deposit. 
 
 If, as above, a private individual, or any organization, 
 would not be justified in setting a bad example by thus dis- 
 posing of sewage, and doing an act which, although not 
 noticeably objectionable, could be exposed as a material and 
 dangerous pollution of the waters of a public stream, still less 
 would you, as officers of the State, be held blameless for such 
 act. 
 
 The Stockton Slough as an Outfall. 
 
 As to the use of Stockton Slough, or any part of it, as an 
 outfall for the asylum sewage, I am clearly of the opinion that 
 such use would soon result in the pollution of its waters to 
 such an extent that it would be noticeable to the eye of the 
 casual observer for at least six months in the year; that in a 
 very few years the bed of the slough in the neighborhood of 
 the outfall, and above and below it, would become so charged 
 with putrescible matter as to give off foul odors and deleterious 
 gases, and that the solid matter of your sewage, amounting to 
 1,000 to 1,500 cubic feet, yearly, would settle in the slough 
 channel, and not be carried away into the river. 
 
 It takes a water current velocity of two and a half to three 
 and a quarter feet per second to hold in suspension keep 
 from settling the suspended matters of sewage, and no such 
 
63 
 
 velocity now ever exists in Stockton Slough above the mouth 
 of Mormon Slough, and below the mouth of Mormon Slough 
 only for the few days of the highest floods. 
 
 The Stockton channel is a mere dead-end basin, without 
 fixed water currents, for the greater portion of each year. A 
 good part of this time that portion when the river is high 
 and the Mormon Slough is not in flood there is not even a 
 material tidal action in this basin. And when the water is 
 low the tidal movement is only about two and a half feet. 
 
 Knowing the section of the channel at its mouth, the area 
 and depth, and consequently the volume of the tidal prism 
 above that point, and the time of tidal movement, as I do 
 from surveys, with sufficient accuracy for this purpose, I find 
 that the average velocity of tidal currents at the mouth must 
 be even less than one foot a second, and that the maximum 
 can rarely, if ever, exceed two feet, and that must be for a very 
 short time at each tide. 
 
 This estimate is for the section at the mouth of the channel ; 
 of course the rates diminish for each section above, until there 
 is no perceptible current made by the tide much above Mor- 
 mon Slough; the movement of the waters in the down-stream 
 half of the channel alternately backing up and lowering those in 
 the up-stream end. 
 
 Thus any disposal of sewage in this channel above the 
 mouth of Mormon Slough would, so far as tidal current influ- 
 ence is concerned, be received in a pond almost without cur- 
 rent, and disposal below that point would be in a channel 
 with current insufficient to hold the solid matters in suspen- 
 sion, and that, too, running alternately up and down, so as to 
 act both ways. 
 
 The water circulation in the upper half of Stockton Slough 
 is kept up more by the influence of the wind than by tide. 
 The trade winds of Summer blow almost directly up the chan- 
 nel, creating a surface current in that direction, which of 
 course results in a sub-surface or bottom current in the oppo- 
 site direction. Observation in other similar water basins 
 
6 4 
 
 shows these rules of circulation generally to prevail; and my own 
 observation of Stockton channel leads me to believe that it 
 presents no exception. 
 
 Sewage matter dumped into this channel would in part be 
 swept up stream as well as down, 'and be simply spread along 
 the bottom of the waterway. 
 
 It has been proposed to deposit the sewage at a point where 
 some dead-end slough joins the main channel, making a back- 
 water reservoir for the sewage, which would be emptied at low 
 tide. 
 
 Under the circumstances and laws I have pointed out, a lit- 
 tle reflection will show to any one, I hope, that this would be 
 no safeguard against the evils of which I speak as results. 
 
 If there were tidal area enough towards the upper end of 
 this slough in which to impound water at high tide by a dam, 
 and let it out with a rush as the tide receded, some good might 
 be thus effected, or, rather, harm prevented. But the circum- 
 stances are such as not to admit of any such arrangement at 
 small cost, or any such cost, at least, as you would be justified 
 in incurring for your purposes. 
 
 When sewage is put into tidal waters of this character, or 
 even in a tidal river, the best way to insure its being moved to 
 advantage, is to store it in a tank until the turn of the tide 
 and then let it out, and also flush the channel, as I have indi- 
 cated above, from a tidal reservoir. 
 
 The side channel dumpage would create a nuisance in less 
 time than dumpage into the main slough, for the side channel 
 itself would soon silt up and become a bed of festering matter 
 to poison the air of the whole neighborhood. 
 
 The North Canal as an Outfall. 
 
 It has been proposed to continue the North Street canal 
 through to the San Joaquin River; to use it as an outfall 
 channel, or to lay a pipe in it to be used as a main outfall 
 sewer, or to lay a pipe for this purpose in the embankment 
 bordering it. 
 
 This canal would for eight or nine thousand feet of its 
 
65 
 
 length be located through the tule swamp whose surface is 
 three to five feet below the level of ordinary high water in the 
 river; and, being joined to the river, it would have to be flanked 
 by embankments on each side, varying in height from six to 
 eight feet, to preserve it as a canal. 
 
 During the greater portion of each year the canal would be 
 simply a dead-end tidal channel, that would . not keep itself 
 clear of silt from natural washings, much less carry away the 
 solid matter of sewage should it be deposited therein. This 
 canal would require a constant flow of seventy-five to one 
 hundred cubic feet of water per second to make it self-cleans- 
 ing, and where any such supply can be had to feed it, for at 
 least eight months in each year, I am at a loss to know. 
 
 The city of Sacramento has just such a canal for an outfall 
 channel for its sewage waters. Under a city ordinance every 
 house drain has to connect with a cesspool, so that the solid 
 matter settles therein, and the overflow liquid, only, reaches 
 the sewers and through them the canal. Yet this canal, 
 receiving but little solid matter, and with greater grade than 
 can be had in io,oqO feet of the proposed extension of the 
 North Street canal of Stockton, and receiving a larger amount 
 of sewage than that would receive (giving it a better flow on 
 the average, of course), is an object that, I am satisfied, the 
 owners of property in Stockton would not like to have trans- 
 ferred to their neighborhood, and which the Sacramentans 
 would quickly get rid of, if they could at any outlay of money 
 which the city could immediately afford. 
 
 If the proposed North Street canal were not carried through 
 to the river, the sewage would spread over private lands. 
 
 If the pipe were laid in the canal through which to run 
 sewage, as has been proposed, it would be below water and 
 impossible to get at for repairs, would be broken by unequal 
 settlement in the soft ground, and have to be flushed out 
 under considerable pressure, artificially applied, during at least 
 six months of the year when the river was not nearly at its 
 lowest stage. 
 9 
 
66 
 
 If a sewer pipe were laid in the embankment, it would be 
 broken by unequal settlement of the bank, unless that bank 
 were specially built to sustain it, at very considerable extra 
 expense, and there are other objections to this arrangement 
 which I mention in the last part of this report. 
 
 If a sewer pipe is to be laid from the asylum, or the north- 
 ern part of the city of Stockton, to the San Joaquin River, 
 unless a very considerable amount of money is to be expended 
 in constructing this canal and building and protecting its 
 banks, it (the pipe) should be laid down along the northern 
 bank of the Stockton channel, where the ground is most firm, 
 where it will be most accessible, cheap of construction, and 
 economical in maintenance. It should be put upon a good 
 artificial foundation wherever the natural ground is not suffi- 
 ciently firm, and be so located as to be within (north of) the 
 line of levee that doubtless some day will be erected there. 
 
 In short, I do not see that the asylum sewage problem, up 
 to this point of our consideration of it, has, properly, anything 
 to do with the North Street canal or its extension. 
 
 The agricultural drainage from the asyjum grounds, inclu- 
 sive of the ground filtered by sewage waters, should the sew- 
 age be used properly in the irrigation of those grounds, might 
 well find an outfall by that canal ; but the sewage should not 
 go into it, nor should it go along it or its embankment, in a 
 pipe, unless, as I have said, there is to be an embankment 
 specially built for the purpose of holding such pipe, and unless 
 works are to be here carried out, in connection therewith, very 
 much more expensive and elaborate than you would be justi- 
 fied in undertaking, except as a small part of the city of Stock- 
 ton. 
 
 I now respectfully call your attention to another aspect of 
 this question of outfall into the San Joaquin River or any of 
 
 its arms. 
 
 The Legal Aspect of the Question. 
 
 The. State, the Guardian of the Streams. 
 
 The State is the guardian of the public streams, particularly 
 of those which are navigable. If anything is done which pol- 
 
6; 
 
 lutes the waters of such streams, the authority of the State 
 would or should be exercised to stop it. Perhaps this practice 
 of dumping sewage into streams will be resorted to in this 
 State by town authorities as a convenient, and, apparently to 
 them, cheap way of getting rid of it. Perhaps the subject will 
 be tampered with and temporized with here, just as it has been 
 elsewhere, until some flagrant nuisances have been created 
 until the beds of our watercourses have been poisoned when 
 the State will be called upon to stop the practice. 
 
 But when this time comes it should not be of record that the 
 State herself, by the act of the Directors of the Stockton Insane 
 Asylum, set the bad example which, followed out, will have 
 led to the pollution of her streams, the waste of money in town 
 sewerage works that will have to be remodelled, and probably 
 will have conduced to the propagation of some of those disease 
 scourges the names of which, even, fill many people with dread. 
 
 Or, perhaps, I may be wrong when I say that this evil prac- 
 tice of fouling river waters with sewage will probably grow up 
 here ; I hope so, but at any rate it will be well to set the 
 example of a right and proper mode of disposing of sewage ; 
 and while there might be blame in future store for State 
 authorities who set a bad example, there may be praise await- 
 ing the carrying out of a good example, and material benefit 
 to the citizens of the State by thus showing town authorities 
 what should be done and how to do it in this respect. 
 
 At any rate, unpopular though it may be, and " ahead of the 
 times" here, or 'savoring of refinement of policy not justified 
 by the facts, as it may seem to the many persons who have 
 not really studied the matter, and who will naturally tend to 
 the easiest solution, for the time being, of this sewage disposal 
 problem here, as many other good people have done elsewhere, 
 it is clearly my duty to point out the danger ahead and advise 
 against taking the channel which experience has so fully shown 
 to be filled with rocks and shoals and wrecks, further on. 
 
 I see no reason why we, though far from the scenes of 
 mature experience on this sewage question, should fall into the 
 
68 
 
 same errors (and there are hundreds of them besides the one 
 I have pointed out) that the local authorities of England and 
 Germany and France have waded through, or are still floun- 
 dering in, at such enormous expense to their " rate payers." 
 For we have only to look thoroughly into the subject to go 
 below the scum of books written merely for popular sale 
 and devote some systematic study to the detailed professional 
 accounts of what others have done, rather than to trust to the 
 inspiration of " local talent," and be led by shallow efforts at 
 economizing at the inauguration of sewerage systems. 
 
 California Penal Code. 
 
 Beyond the matter of policy in this question of sewage dis- 
 posal for your institution, lies the facts of the law. 
 
 Section 374 of the Penal Code of the State, as amended in 
 1875-76, reads as follows : 
 
 " Every person who puts the carcass of any dead animal, or the 
 ' offal from any slaughter-pen, corral, or butcher shop, into any river, 
 
 * creek, pond, reservoir, stream, street, alley, public highway, or road 
 ' in common use, or who attempts to destroy the same by fire within 
 ' one fourth of a mile of any city, town, or village, and every person 
 ' who puts the carcass of any dead animal, or any offal of any kind, 
 ' in or upon the borders of any stream, pond, lake, or reservoir, 
 ' from which water is drawn for the supply of the inhabitants of any 
 ' city, city and county, or any town, in this State, so that the drain- 
 
 * age from such carcass or offal may be taken up by or in such 
 ' stream, pond, lake, or reservoir, or who allows the carcass of any 
 ' dead animal, or any offal of any kind, to remain in or upon the 
 
 * borders of any such stream, pond, lake, or reservoir, within the 
 ' boundaries of any lands owned or occupied by him, or who keeps 
 ' any horses, mules, cattle, swine, sheep, or live stock of any kind, 
 ' penned, corraled, or housed on, over, or on the borders of any 
 1 such stream, pond, lake, or reservoir, so that the waters thereof 
 
 * shall become polluted by reason thereof, is guilty of a misdemeanor, 
 ' and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as prescribed in 
 ' Section 377 of this Code. (In effect March 23, 1876.) 
 
 This law does not say " sewage" or "sewage matter;*' but it 
 certainly seems to me that it specifies infinitely less offensive 
 acts than that of depositing several cubic feet daily of the 
 most foul and dangerous offal known, in a stream, and says 
 that the person found doing either of them shall be deemed 
 guilty of a misdemeanor, and punished accordingly. 
 
69 
 
 The solid matter of the asylum sewage, to say nothing of 
 the liquid, which is very much greater in bulk, would about 
 equal a good sized calf, at the verge of decomposition, daily, 
 deposit it where you will. 
 
 The Law of Nuisances. 
 
 Without in any way attempting to assume the part of your 
 legal adviser, but rather to bring to your attention some pri- 
 mary points of the law, in order that you may see the neces- 
 sity for taking advice of your proper legal counselor before 
 making a step which may lead to trouble, should you be 
 inclined to put the sewage of your institution into any stream 
 or ditch, I recommend to your reading the thirteenth chapter 
 of "Wood on Nuisances," edition of 1883, a work which I 
 believe stands high as a legal text-book. 
 
 You will there find that "the right of a riparian owner to 
 " have the water of a stream come to him in its natural purity 
 " is as well recognized as the right to have it flow to his land ;" 
 that "the Legislature," even, "has not the power'to authorize 
 " the use " of a navigable stream " in such a way as to destroy 
 " its use by riparian owners " for drinking or "primary pur- 
 " poses," " without compensation ; that the fact of its being a 
 " public convenience to dispose of offal in a river, is no excuse 
 " in the eyes of the law ;" that " neither does it make any 
 " difference or in any measure operate as an excuse that the 
 " nuisance cannot be obviated without great expense, or that 
 " the plaintiff himself could obviate the injury at a trifling 
 " expense ;" that the question of distance which the offensive 
 matter may be transported does not operate as an excuse ; 
 that, in the words of a leading English decision, " the pollution 
 " of the waters of a navigable stream so as to destroy their 
 " value for primary purposes, by leading into the same the 
 " sewage of the town, is a nuisance," and "the fact that sewage 
 " has been sent there for many years does not give a prescrip- 
 " tive right to continue it, when, by the increase therein, it 
 " becomes a nuisance." 
 
 These, and many more sentences in the same vein, seem to 
 
7 
 
 be right to the point, and worthy of attention ; for, the ex- 
 ceptions to the rule given by the same authority, are, (i) when 
 the pollution is slight and not appreciable, or (2) when the 
 increase of pollution is not noticeable. 
 
 The test of pollution must ever be a scientific one, for water 
 may be absolutely poisonous from animal organisms, and still 
 be sweet to the taste, without odor, sparkling, and attractive 
 to the eye ; and chemistry tells us that any pollution of water 
 with sewage is material, dangerous, and should not be per- 
 mitted even when the water is only occasionally used for 
 drinking purposes, or by a few persons only. 
 
 The Civil Code of California. 
 
 Our Civil Code (Sec. 3479) says that anything which " offends 
 decency" is a nuisance, or that "unlawfully interferes with, ob- 
 structs, or tends to obstruct, or renders dangerous for passage, 
 any lake, or navigable river, bay, stream, canal, or basin," etc. 
 
 You soon will have two thousand people at your institution. 
 The combined personal offal of this number of human beings, 
 men, women, and children averaged, is one hundred and forty- 
 four thousand pounds of solid matter, and one million nine 
 hundred thousand pounds of liquid, per year. 
 
 It may be well to ask whether it would "offend decency" to 
 put this matter into the Stockton Slough, the North Street 
 canal, or even the San Joaquin River; and it may be well to 
 ask whether it would "tend to obstruct" the passage of boats, 
 etc., to put this matter into the slough or river. 
 
 Of course, I cannot advise you on these points, but simply 
 bring them to your notice that you may inquire further from 
 the right source for legal advice. 
 
 CAN THE SEW AG?: BE RETAINED ON THE ASYLUM GROUNDS? 
 
 As the alternative to the removal of the sewage from your 
 institution to the river or other tide-water outfall, the question 
 presented is: can the sewage be retained upon the asylum 
 grounds without producing effects detrimental to the sanitary 
 
condition of the neighborhood the health and comfort of per- 
 sons there resident? 
 
 To this question I reply YES, in my judgment this can be 
 done, and, more too, the. sewage is valuable and should not be 
 wasted. 
 
 But, it will be answered : this sewage matter has been thus 
 utilized for years in the past, until now it has become a nui- 
 sance, and its removal is demanded alike for the good of the 
 health and comfort of the residents roundabout. 
 
 That there are offensive odors pervading these grounds dur- 
 ing the warm and still Summer and Fall months, that the 
 sewage itself at such times is quite offensive, that the effect in 
 the neighborhood of the cesspool where it is collected is very 
 repulsive, and that this state of things is not only disagreeable 
 but alarming and demands speedy correction, I am prompt to 
 admit; but that the mentioned effects are due to sewage irri- 
 gation, I do not admit 
 
 The Present Arrangements. 
 
 With several thousand feet of large wooden box drain, 
 which must by this time be filled with decomposing and most 
 foul matter, leading from the buildings through the grounds to 
 the cesspool ; with a great pit or hole in the ground, unlined, 
 uncovered, which has for years been the receptacle for all this 
 matter, for a cesspool, the earth of its sides and bottom soaked 
 and reeking with corrupted matter; with an open bucket 
 pump to raise the filthy liquid, all exposed to the sun and air, 
 dripping and dirty the year around ; with open wooden flumes, 
 soaked with the fermenting matter of months ago, laid about 
 the grounds for the distribution of the sewage in irrigation; 
 with these arrangements, I say, you have quite sufficient cause 
 for emanations of the most repulsive kind and far-reaching 
 power, without attributing any part of such noticed effects to 
 the sewage irrigated grounds themselves. 
 
 If these grounds contribute in any material degree to this 
 nuisance, it is for reasons of Insufficient preparation of them 
 
72 
 
 for irrigation, and unsuitable arrangements for the distribution 
 of the waters in irrigation, to wit : 
 
 1. Because they are not underdrained, and consequently 
 
 (a) do not take the sewage water promptly as they should, 
 
 (b) at times become over-saturated and give off their super- 
 fluous moisture by evaporation from the surface instead of by 
 underdrainage as they should, (c) do not become promptly 
 aerified after each irrigation, and (d) swell upon being soaked 
 and crack open on becoming dry. 
 
 2. Because in distribution, the sewage is run long distances 
 in shallow open ditches, thus permitting the soil inclosing 
 these channel-ways to become overcharged with the liquid 
 and the bottom and sides of the ditches to become coated 
 with sewage sediment, so that when the irrigation is stopped 
 and water withdrawn from any such ditch there is a film or 
 deposit of matter left in it not taken into the soil and 
 deodorized as it should be by it. And finally, 
 
 3. Because the irrigation is not carried on with dispatch 
 and promptness, but the waters are left running for hours, 
 slowly finding their way about the grounds. This is more the 
 outcome of inefficient distributing works, perhaps, than of 
 poor management in their use. 
 
 Proper Arrangements to be Made. 
 
 In my judgment, when the foul wooden box-drains shall 
 have been removed, and the ditches in which they have lain 
 have been refilled with fresh soil mixed with lime, when the 
 earthen pit cesspool shall have been thoroughly emptied, 
 cleansed, and in like manner filled up; when the wooden box 
 distributing troughs or flumes and open bucket pumps shall 
 have been put well out of the way; when the sewage is con- 
 ducted from the buildings in good ironstone glazed sewer 
 pipes laid with neat cement joints, into a covered vat or tank 
 with concrete floor and walls neatly rendered in cement, and 
 is then pumped by some suitable closed pump through proper 
 pipes and thus distributed about the grounds so that it will 
 
73 
 
 never have to run more than a hundred feet through an open 
 ditch ; when these grounds are underdrained and about twenty 
 acres of them specially prepared for sewage irrigation, and 
 twenty acres more kept in such condition of cultivation that 
 the sewage can occasionally be put thereon to advantage, 
 then when these things are done your sewage waters can 
 be kept at home without nuisance or offense to any one and 
 with great advantage to the economy of your institution. 
 
 If anything further is required to insure perfect sanitary 
 results, I should first look to your house plumbing and indoor 
 drainage work. All the outside work may be perfect, but 
 with these defective, as they are in ninety-nine cases out of 
 every hundred in this State, and, as I have no doubt they are 
 in the older buildings at least of your institution, no amount 
 of conducting the sewage away or properly using it on the 
 grounds will accomplish the result which should be your pri- 
 mary object to attain. 
 
 If after these works are tried, it appears desirable to make 
 assurance doubly sure in the line of complete sanitary treat- 
 ment of your sewage, which I do not think will be the case, 
 it will then be time to erect a proper tank or tanks, and by 
 the use of some one of the processes for precipitation hereto- 
 fore described, clarify your sewage before applying the water 
 to the land, and promptly mixing the precipitated matter 
 with ashes, dry stable manure, and dry earth, sell it for manure, 
 or apply it at the proper season to enrich the fields and gar- 
 dens of your reservation. 
 
 I am satisfied for the present, however, that with proper 
 means of collecting and promptly and rapidly distributing 
 your sewage on well prepared grounds, and with a skillful use 
 of these appliances, you will not need any precipitating tanks, 
 for you have ample grounds to spare upon which, if properly 
 prepared and arranged, to put the sewage of 6,000 people, at 
 almost the minimum rate at which such disposal is made in 
 older countries, in instances where no nuisances or bad effect 
 of any kind is produced. 
 10 
 
74 
 
 Your land, soil and subsoil, to be sure, is not of the most 
 favorable quality for irrigation. It is a heavy adobe soil, 
 varying in depth from two to four feet, on a clay marl subsoil ; 
 whereas it should to best advantage be of lighter, more sandy, 
 texture, deeper and on a more open subsoil. But thorough 
 tile underdrainage will do much to correct the defects of the 
 soil and make up for the want of a porous subsoil and the 
 absence of natural drainage-ways in the vicinity. 
 
 This absence of natural drainage-ways, and the small slope 
 of the plain, rendering it difficult to get a good gravity outfall 
 for the under-drainage of the land, it may be necessary and 
 probably will, at times during the rainy season at least, to lead 
 the drainage waters into a well, and pump them out into 
 some neighboring natural surface drainage channel, or into the 
 North Street canal. These waters, of course, will be inoffen- 
 sive and nearly if not quite as pure as any drainage waters^ 
 for they will be in part rain waters, and will all have passed 
 through the soil, and have been subjected, as we have seen, 
 to the best known process for their purification the natural 
 one of land filtration and plant action and hence they can 
 be discharged anywhere that any waters may be run, without 
 giving cause for complaint. Such drainage waters are freely 
 admitted into all streams in the countries where this subject 
 has received so much attention, and where the war against 
 sewage pollutions is most earnestly carried on. 
 
 Beyond these arrangements, there should be some systematic 
 crop rotation established for your grounds, whereunder your 
 sewage can be utilized in the watering of such plants as best 
 receive it and thrive by its use, while other crops which we 
 know do not do well under its influence should be irrigated 
 with pure water. 
 
 Sew age- Farming and Drainage. 
 
 An essential feature of preparation, natural or artificial, for 
 successful irrigation good crop returns and good sanitary 
 condition of the fields and neighborhood when carried on 
 with the purest waters even, is perfect drainage and a well 
 
75 
 
 aerated soil. Where these are absent, crops will after awhile 
 begin to fail, special plant diseases appear, malarial affections 
 will become prevalent amongst the people, and irrigation will 
 be voted a failure and fraught with more harm than good. 
 
 There are localities where such conditions prevail, and such 
 results are being encountered now in California. It is an old 
 story in older countries, but here the question is not under- 
 stood. All over this State where irrigation is practiced, pro- 
 vision for drainage will after awhile have to be made. 
 
 You cannot have a fine stand of alfalfa under irrigation on 
 thirty to forty acres of your land, the soil and subsoil being 
 as it is, and long preserve a good sanitary condition of your 
 grounds and neighborhood, unless you drain them. If irriga- 
 tion is to go on and be extended around your buildings, of the 
 character that has been carried forward, there should be under- 
 drainage, whether you use sewage waters or clear artesian well 
 waters. 
 
 A sewage farm is what we choose to make it unobjection- 
 able as a neighbor if we will, very objectionable if we allow it 
 to be. 
 
 Sewage waters are not offensive during the first twenty-four 
 hours after their pollution, if they are kept from the sun, or 
 in any event for the first eighteen to twenty hours, if retained 
 in proper receptacles. 
 
 An essential feature of an unobjectionable sewage farm is 
 an undefiled receptacle for the fresh sewage, which can be 
 washed out and kept rjure, and like means of distributing the 
 sewage rapidly and to points near where it is to be absorbed 
 by the ground. . 
 
 You have not any of these essentials to success in conduct- 
 ing your sewage irrigation. Let us provide them, and then 
 see if anything more be needed. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 In carrying out these suggestions by keeping your sewage 
 at home and utilizing it on your grounds you will be only 
 doing what hundreds of other authorities in charge of similar 
 
institutions less favorably situated, with respect to climate at 
 least, are doing or preparing to do, what hundreds of small 
 and large towns are doing or preparing to do, what many 
 others would do if the local circumstances would admit of it, 
 and what is gradually being recognized .throughout the world 
 as the proper and only reasonable thing to be done with 
 sewage. 
 
 Sanitary and engineering literature of this day and for the 
 past ten years is replete with evidence of this fact, and with 
 practical information as to how to insure success in such works. 
 Your minds once made up to this course, and your work well 
 done, you will have taken the right steps to accomplish your 
 purpose of proper sanitation of your institution, and will have 
 done nothing not necessary in any event. 
 
 The engineering aspect of your problem, with plans and 
 estimates for your work, will be briefly set forth in the next 
 and final part of this report. 
 
YC/0495! 
 
 1*262480 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY