1886. | CEPY DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 
 
 ii PO RTL 
 
 SHOWING LOCATION AND SIZE 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Main and Intercepting Sewers 
 
 AND OTHER INFORMATION RELATING TO THE 
 REPORT PRESENTED TO THE 
 CITY COUNCIL 
 
 BY 
 
 ». M. GRAY, CITY ENGINEER, 
 
 NOVEMBER 14, 1884. 
 
 [City Doc., No. 25. ] 
 
 PROVIDENCE: 
 PROVIDENCE PRESS COMPANY, PRINTERS TO THE CITY. 
 1886. 
 
25 3 2 a Bleprrd 
 
 DOG. 6 
 P DURER 
 
 jail nhl eet OM na Bp 
 
 City ENGINEER’S OFFICE, City HALL, 
 ProvipENCE, R. I., February 2, 1886. 
 
 To THE HONORABLE THE CrtTy COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF 
 PROVIDENCE: 
 
 GENTLEMEN :—In pursuance of resolutions passed by 
 your honorable bodies, to wit : 
 
 [In Common Council, January 18, 1886. ] 
 
 Resolved, That the city engineer be, and he hereby is directed to prepare 
 plans showing the size, levels and grades of the following enumerated 
 main intercepting sewers, and report the same to the common council in 
 print, viz. : 
 
 First. The main intercepting sewer for the ninth ward, beginning at 
 
 '. the proposed pumping station and running westerly to Allen’s avenue, 
 .thence northwesterly to the corner of Dexter and Cromwell streets, us 
 described in appendix C, page 126 of the proposed plan for a sewerage 
 
 iG system for the city of Providence, by Samuel M. Gray, city engineer, and 
 *~ contained in city document No. 25, 1884. 
 
 Second. The main intercepting sewer from the proposed pumping sta- 
 tion, westerly to Allen’s avenue, and thence northerly through Allen’s 
 avenue, Eddy and Dyer streets to Westminster street, as described on 
 
 = page 127 of the above named city document. 
 
 Third. The main intercepting sewer and siphon across the river from 
 the junction of Allen’s avenue and Langley street, easterly across the 
 Providence river, and northerly through South Water and Canal streets, 
 and through the valley of the Moshassuck river to the city line, as de- 
 scribed in the above named city document on pages 129 and 130. 
 
 [In Board of Aldermen, January 27, 1886. ] 
 
 c~ Resolved, That the city engineer be, and he is hereby directed to present 
 
 — in print to the board of aldermen, in connection with the information to 
 
 VY be furnished by him to the common council, in accordance with the reso- 
 
 —_ lution dated January 18, 1886, the following information relative to his 
 report on the sewerage of the city of Providence, presented to the city 
 council, dated July 23, 1884: 
 
 uGY 
 
 304614 
 
4 CITY DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 
 
 First. Plans showing the locations, sizes, elevations and grades of the 
 outfall, main and intercepting sewers, etc., as recommended by him in 
 said report, together with his reasons for the location of said lines as 
 therein proposed. 
 
 Second. Why the crossing of the Providence river is done at Fox 
 Point instead of at or near Crawford street bridge, and the relative cost 
 of the two plans. 
 
 Third. Why the line for the main intercepting sewer for taking the 
 sewage from parts of the seventh, eighth and tenth wards is carried 
 through Richmond and Mathewson streets instead of through Dyer, Dor- 
 
 rance and Cove streets, where for a large part of the way a sewer is now 
 built. 
 
 Fourth. That he show the main features of a plan for disposing of the 
 sewage by means of irrigation at Warwick and at Seekonk Plains, and also 
 a plan for the disposal of crude sewage by means of a reservoir or other- 
 wise at Field’s Point, and that he show what changes from the plan pro- 
 posed in his report would be necessary for thus disposing of the sewage 
 and the relative cost of such plans, and his reasons for the recommenda- 
 tions made by him for the disposal of the sewage of the city. 
 
 Fifth. That he show in detail the cost of the parts necessary for pre- 
 cipitation in the plan recommended. 
 
 Sixth. That he show whether manufacturing waste can be discharged 
 into the proposed sewers from the various manufactories. 
 
 Seventh. That he also furnish any other general information pertinent 
 to the subject. 
 
 [In Board of Aldermen, April 15, 1886. ] 
 
 Resolved, That the city engineer be, and he is hereby instructed to 
 report to the city council the information called for relative to his report 
 on the sewerage of the city of Providence, under resolution of this 
 board dated January 27, 1886. . 
 
 I respectfully present the following report : 
 
 First. Plans showing the locations, sizes, elevations and grades of the 
 outfall, main and intercepting sewers, etc., as recommended by him in 
 said report, together with his reasons for the location of said lines as 
 therein proposed 
 
 On the map accompanying this report will be seen the 
 location of the main and intercepting sewers, as referred to 
 in the report of the city engineer presented to the city 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 5 
 
 council, dated July 23, 1884. These lines are identical 
 with those repesented on maps incorporated in the report of 
 1884. On the profiles Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, appended to 
 this report, can be found the sizes, elevations, grades, etc., 
 of the intercepting sewers, the lines of which are repre- 
 sented on the general map accompanying this report. 
 Nature usually provides valley lines for the drainage of any 
 territory, and in some cases so positively marked and de- 
 fined that to follow any other course would be well-nigh 
 impossible. Slight deviations from the natural lines may 
 be necessary in order to follow the existing layout of 
 streets. In locating the lines for the main sewers, the prin- 
 ciple of following the valley lines has been adhered to as 
 strictly as possible. In determining the location of main 
 intercepting sewers, the principle of crossing and intercept- 
 ing the lines of the main sewers near their outlets should 
 be adhered to in order to intercept as much of the sewage 
 flowing in them as is possible. The lines of these sewers will 
 therefore be found following the course of the streams or 
 shore line, governed more or less by the lines of existing 
 streets, or passing through private property when no con- 
 venient layout exists. Intercepting sewers are sometimes 
 used to prevent the sewage of one district from flowing 
 through a lower district, or to keep the sewage and lines of 
 sewers within the limits of the town or city ; such is the case 
 with a large part of the eighth and ninth wards, the natural 
 line of drainage for which is through Cunliff’s pond, in the 
 town of Cranston, and into the Pawtuxet river. 
 
 When it is necessary to depart from the natural lines of 
 drainage, the line which is the shortest and cheapest from 
 the lower part of the district drained to the point of gen- 
 eral collection is the best. Such is the case in the line rep- 
 resented on the map from the corner of Roger Williams 
 avenue and Cobden streets to the proposed pumping station 
 near Corliss cove. 
 
6 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 Second. Why the crossing of the Providence river is done at Fox Point 
 instead of at or near Crawford street bridge, and the relative cost of the 
 two plans. 
 
 The lower part of any district is the natural place to con- 
 centrate the sewage of that district. Nearly all the sewers 
 on the east side naturally tend towards Fox Point, and this 
 therefore becomes the natural point at which to cross the 
 river. 
 
 By crossing the river at Fox Point we keep almost ina 
 direct line towards the point of final collection. 
 
 The most economical system of sewers, both in point of 
 size and cost of the same, is when not only the grades but 
 the lines of sewers can tend towards one point. Bringing 
 the sewage from the Seekonk river branch main sewer, from 
 Fox Point up to Crawford street (while it diminishes the 
 size of the main over that part of the line a very little), 
 necessitates the laying of the sewer at a lower grade, as it 
 runs against the natural grade, the extra depth being (for 
 the crown grade) the sum of the two grades into the dis- 
 tance (some 3,650 feet) ; it also necessitates the building of 
 a much larger sewer, laid at a greater depth, from Crawford 
 street bridge through Dyer street and Eddy street to Langley 
 street ; it furthermore necessitates the lowering of the main 
 intercepting sewer about 2.80 feet from Langley street to the 
 pumping station at Field’s Point, with a corresponding deep- 
 ing of the foundation of the pump well. This also adds a 
 perpetual extra lift for the pumps, which will add to the 
 cost of pumping into precipitation tanks or into a reservoir, 
 or to irrigation fields, as the case may be. 
 
 The crossing of the river at Fox Point is at a place where 
 there is room to work, with no obstructions on either shore 
 or over the river, and where necessary buildings can be 
 placed on each end of the siphon without obstructing travel 
 in the public highways. 
 
 The line as proposed in South Water street and crossing 
 the Providence river to Allen’s avenue is also a better line 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 7 
 
 on which to build a deep sewer than Dyer street with its 
 large and heavy buildings would be. Dyer street is also 
 pretty well occupied at present by a thirty-inch and a six- 
 inch water pipe, a sewer, and gas pipes. 
 
 The estimated cost of the sewer, as proposed in the report 
 of 1884, in South Water street, across the river at Fox 
 Point to Allen’s avenue, and up Eddy street and Dyer street 
 to Crawford street bridge, is $216,245.15. 
 
 The line from India street, up South Water street to 
 Crawford street, across the river and through Dyer and 
 Eddy streets to Langley street, is $229,677.70, a difference 
 of $13,432.55. 
 
 The cost of lowering the line from Langley street to the 
 pumping well, and the lowering of the foundations of the 
 same, would be $22,975.00, which, plus $13,432.55, equals 
 $36,407.55, which is the difference in construction of the 
 work. ‘To this is to be added the perpetual cost of raising 
 the sewage 2.80 feet higher than by proposed plan. 
 
 The extra depth, increase of size, etc., etc., can be seen 
 on Plate No. 6 accompanying this report. The full lines 
 represent the lines as proposed; the dotted lines show the 
 changes necessary if the crossing of the river is done at 
 Crawford street bridge instead of at Fox Point. 
 
 Third. Why the line for the main intercepting sewer for taking the 
 sewage from parts of the seventh, eighth and tenth wards is carried 
 through Richmond and Mathewson streets instead of through Dyer, Dor- 
 rance and Cove streets, where for a large part of the way a sewer is now 
 built. 
 
 When the present Cove street and Dorrance street sewer 
 was built, it was expected that it would form a part of the 
 main intercepting sewer and would eventually be extended 
 to Olneyville. Experience since that time has shown the 
 necessity for retaining this sewer for the exclusive use of the 
 district it now serves, which is already as large as can be 
 taken care of by a sewer of its dimensions. 
 
 Owing to its location in one of the lowest and flattest por- 
 
8 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 tions of the city, where the streets are so little above tide- 
 water that the sewer und the bottom of the cellars on its line 
 must necessarily be very near the same elevation, it becomes 
 important to prevent as much as possible the flooding of the 
 sewer by water brought from outside of the district it is 
 intended to provide ee 
 
 Speaking of this part of the biatriat: Mr. Shedd says, in 
 his report of February, 1874 (p.19, last paragraph, ) : “When 
 the sewerage system is complete, and the waters of a rain- 
 fall are gathered quickly, and carried rapidly to the outlet, 
 there will be trouble enough with the drainage of this low 
 district, if we keep out of it all the water that it is practi- 
 cable to turn in some other course.” The Dorrance street 
 district originally contained about 422 acres ; some 262 acres 
 were intercepted by the sewer running from Atwell’s avenue 
 through Bourn, Jackson, High, Chestnut and Elm streets to 
 the river; but in case of a very heavy storm the surplus 
 water from the latter district flows down on to the present 
 Dorrance street district. It was to remedy the difficulty and 
 to take a part at least of this overflow, that the storm sew- 
 ers in Aborn and Washington streets and in Chestnut and 
 Ship streets were built. 
 
 Although these storm sewers are fulfilling the purposes 
 for which they were built, the same reason still exists for 
 not extending the territory drained by the Dorrance and 
 Cove streets sewer, which would be the case if the Dorrance 
 street sewer was extended to Olneyville and used as a part 
 of the intercepting sewer. 
 
 The Dorrance street sewer is not deep enough to act as a 
 part of the main intercepting sewer, as may be seen on 
 Plate No. 2, at Cove street. The intercepting sewer should 
 pass under the Dorrance street and all other sewers in order 
 to leave them free to act as storm-water overflows. 
 
 As another sewer is required, which is to be used for inter- 
 ception only, it leaves us free to go through Ship, Richmond 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 9 
 
 and Mathewson streets, which is the most direct and the 
 shortest route by about 330 feet. 
 
 By intercepting the sewage from the lines crossing this 
 part of the main intercepting sewer in this district it reduces 
 the amount of sewage carried into Dorrance street sewer, 
 and in case of storm the dilution of the overflow from that 
 sewer will be much greater. 
 
 Fourth. That he show the main features of a plan for disposing of the 
 sewage by means of irrigation at Warwick and at Seekonk Plains, and 
 also a plan for the disposal of crude sewage by means of a reservoir or 
 otherwise at Field’s Point, and that he show what changes from the plan 
 proposed in his report would be necessary for thus disposing of the 
 sewage and the relative cost of such plans, and his reasons for the rec. 
 ommendations made by him for the disposal of the sewage of the city. 
 
 On the map accompanying this report will be seen the 
 lines of the mains (in heavy dotted lines) that will be neces- 
 sary if a system of sewage irrigation be adopted either at 
 Seekonk Plains or at Warwick. For the Seekonk Plains 
 plan the pumping station would be at C., near India Point ; 
 the lines of the sewer from the ninth ward would be changed 
 from its present position at L. to the line marked K., from 
 Plain street to Allen’s avenue; from this point to Langley 
 street the grade of the sewer in Allen’s avenue would have 
 to run in the opposite direction from that recommended in 
 the report of 1884. 
 
 The line of force-main from the pumping station would 
 cross the Seekonk river about in the line of the old Washing- 
 ton bridge; thence northerly between the railroad and the 
 river to near Waterman avenue railroad bridge; thence 
 through Massasoit avenue and other streets, crossing the 
 Ten Mile river by a siphon to the point marked D. on the 
 plan, near the upper end of the only available area on the 
 Seekonk Plains. This area is indicated on the plan by 
 hatching ; the part so shaded covers about 1,175 acres of land, 
 
 all of which drains towards and into the Ten Mile river. 
 9 ° 
 
10 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 The elevation of the southerly end of this area, on line of 
 force-main, is about 64 feet above high tide. At the point 
 marked D. it is 81 feet above high tide, with the ground 
 still rising slowly towards the north. The elevation of the 
 Ten Mile river against this land varies from 42.2 to about 
 52 feet above high tide. Upon this territory is a ledge from 
 which building stone has been taken; also a large peat 
 swamp, while quite a large part is covered by swampy land, 
 and will require extensive drainage before it can be utilized. 
 
 From the pumping station at C. to the point marked D. 
 it is 26,850 feet, or 5.085 miles. It is estimated that it 
 will require three forty-eight inch mains to deliver the max- 
 imum amount of sewage at the latter point. But as it will 
 be some years before the three are needed, only one line has 
 been included in the estimate. 
 
 The estimated cost of the Seekonk Plains’ plan is as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 SEEKONK PLAINS’ PLAN FOR 100,000 PEOPLE. 
 IRRIGATION. 
 
 For all main and intercepting sewers, includ- 
 
 ing all necessary man-holes, flush-gates, 
 
 regulating chambers, tide-gates, etc., . $2,127,066 89 
 For pumping station, with steam pumping 
 
 machinery, boiler, etc., : ; 4 466,298 00 
 Land, rights of way, etc., in city, ; - 186,484 OO 
 
 Force-main (1,48 inch), . : , 395,000 00 
 Rights of way for same, . : : 20,000 00 
 Land, 1,175 acres, . ; ; : : 606,250 00 
 Draining, clearing land, etc., . : f 250,000 00 
 Pipe distribution on farm, . ; ‘ 60,000 00 
 
 $4,111,098 89 
 Plus 15 per cent., : : - 616,664 83 
 
 $4,727,763 72 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. ll 
 
 Furthermore, should the city of Pawtucket ever decide to 
 treat its sewage by irrigation or filtration, this would be the 
 most available land for this purpose; and it may be well to 
 bear in mind that the interests of the city of Providence will 
 eventually be effected by the disposal of the sewage of Paw- 
 tucket. 
 
 For the Warwick plan the line of force-main is shown as 
 leaving the proposed pumping station at Field’s Point and 
 running southerly to the high ground just north of Division 
 avenue, where it may be necessary to have a short stand-pipe ; 
 thence to and through Division avenue to Eddy street ; thence 
 by Eddy street and Broad street and Warwick avenue to a 
 point in Warwick avenue about 600 feet north of the Spring 
 Green school house. <A short branch to the left, marked F., 
 will reach a high point from which the sewage can be taken 
 by gravity to the area shaded, embracing the John Brown 
 Francis farm. The line to the right runs along the high 
 ground which separates the water-shed of the Pawtuxet 
 river from that of Warwick pond, to the high point marked 
 G., near the old Greenwich road, at an elevation of 64 feet 
 above mean high water, the highest point on the available 
 territory, from which the sewage will flow by gravity on to 
 all the shaded portion to the south. The area to the east of 
 the Warwick road will drain into the coves on either side. 
 The area to the west of the Warwick road and south to the 
 first road leading to the left below Hill’s Grove will drain 
 into Warwick pond, which has its outlet through Buckeye 
 brook into Old Mill creek, and thence into Narragansett 
 Bay just below Conimicut Point, a distance of 3.276 miles 
 from the pond. 
 
 The area to the south of the first road to the left from the old 
 Greenwich road below Hill’s Grove will drain into the two 
 brooks shown on the plan, and thence south into Greenwich or 
 Coweset Bay, near Buttonwoods and Oakland Beach. The 
 distance from the pumping station to the point marked G, is 
 
12 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 27,500 feet, or 5.208 miles. The distance from G. south to 
 H. is 2.69 miles, or it is about 7.9 miles from H. to the 
 pumping station. The line E. F. G. H. along the line of 
 high ground is 5.384 miles long. The area shaded by hatch- 
 ing, covering the land best adapted for irrigation or filtra- 
 tion, includes about 2216.0 acres. 
 
 The estimated cost of the Warwick Plains’ plan is as fol- 
 lows: 
 
 WARWICK PLAN FOR 100,000 PEOPLE. 
 IRRIGATION. 
 
 For all main intercepting sewers as described 
 
 in former report, including all necessary 
 
 man-holes, flush-gates, regulating cham- 
 
 bers, tide-gates, etc., . : A a ho, 109,010 
 For pumping station, including engines and 
 
 boiler house, pump well, filth hoists, 
 
 etc., . ; . : Z : : 466,298 00 
 Land, rights of way, etc., in city, : : 366,484 O00 
 Conduit to Field’s Point for overflow, . ote Oy nee 
 Grading, wharf, railroad, and houses for 
 
 superintendent and engineers, : 90,000 00 
 Force-main (1,48 inch), . ; 890,621 00 
 Land, 2,212 acres, including land for eee 
 
 use, . 3 : 300,000 00 
 Grading, bach sbestitites ati dior Hee? 
 
 at ‘$150. 00, : : : : 150,000 00 
 Pipe distribution on 1,000 acres, : : 95,400 00 
 Two stand-pipes or small reservoirs, . : 40,000 00 
 
 3 $4,243,346 00 
 Add 15 per cent., ; : ; 636,501 90 
 
 — 
 
 $4,879,847 90 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 13 
 
 The float experiments made in 1883, the results of which 
 are given in the report of 1884, show that if the sewage 
 was to be discharged crude at Field’s Point and allowed to 
 flow continuously, it would be brought back into the harbor 
 on the incoming or flood-tide, diluted, of course, but pene- 
 trating to all points and spreading out over all the shallow 
 waters. Some of it would, on the return of the tide, be 
 left along the shores and on the flats, which being repeated 
 with every tide, would in time produce in the lower harbor 
 conditions something like those that are now existing in our 
 docks, rivers and cove. In order, therefore, to have the 
 sewage carried below and away from Field’s Point, so that as 
 little as possible may return to or by the Point, it must be 
 stored or held back during the latter part of the outgoing 
 tide and the whole of the incoming tide, and discharged 
 ‘during the first part of the outgoing or ebb-tide, thus requir- 
 ing a reservoir large enough to hold, say nine hours’ flow, 
 which should have discharging capacity sufficient to empty 
 in about two and one-half hours, and be situated as near the 
 outlet or discharging point as possible, in order to facilitate 
 its rapid discharge. This method of crude disposal has been 
 thought by many to be practicable and good enough for the 
 present. The committee of civil engineers, in their report 
 of August 7, 1876, say: 
 
 “The project of ultimately carrying all the sewage into 
 the deep water current at Field’s Point is judicious and 
 proper, and should be constantly kept in view in all con- 
 structions of marginal or outlet sewers, and in plans for 
 right of way for sewers leading towards that point. It is 
 probable, that to preserve the sanitary condition of the 
 waters of Providence and Seekonk rivers, it will be neces- 
 sary to discharge the sewage ordinarily at ebb-tide, and to 
 have a reservoir near the outlet to enable this to be done. 
 The property of the city on Field’s Point contains a proper 
 site for such works.” 
 
 Which, apparently with a vague feeling of uncertainty as 
 
14 CITY DOCUMENT. [No. 27 
 
 to the sufficiency of the measure, they supplement by the 
 following : 
 
 “Should the sewage ever be of sufficient value to justify 
 the use of it for irrigation, this point will be the position 
 from which it can be most easily carried to the dry plains, 
 on either side of the Pawtuxet river, by pumping it toa 
 sufficient height for distribution.” 
 
 Had precipitation at that time been a practical success, 
 as it has since become, it would probably have been included 
 in the then future possibilities. On Plate 6 will be seen 
 a profile of a conduit and such a reservoir as would be re- 
 quired if the plan of crude disposal were to be adopted. 
 
 The estimated cost of such a plan is as follows : 
 
 CRUDE DISPOSAL FOR 100,000 PEOPLE. 
 
 For all main intercepting sewers as in War- 
 wick plan, . : i ; , » $2,195,973 00 
 Pumping station, with steam pumping machin- 
 
 ery, boiler, etc., : ; ! : 253,600 00 
 Land, rights of way, etc., . f . 866,484 00 
 Grading, railroad wharf, buildings, att <n ae 95,500 00 
 Conduit, pumping station to reservoir, : 148,570 00 
 
 Reservoir to hold nine hours’ maximum flow, 183,371 16 
 
 $3,243,498 16 
 Add 15 per cent., : : - 486,524 72 
 
 $3,730,022 88 
 
 In case crude disposal is adopted, the sewage from the 
 eighth and ninth wards will require pumping; whereas, in 
 case precipitation is adopted, this sewage will flow by gray- 
 ity into the tanks, from which the effluent will flow into the 
 river. 
 
 For answer to “his reasons for the recommendations made 
 
REPORT OF CITY. ENGINEER. 15 
 
 ” 
 
 by him for the disposal of the sewage of the city,” see last 
 
 page of this report. 
 
 RECAPITULATION. 
 
 Seekonk Plains’ plan (irrigation), : wT eAute (etuatie 
 Warwick Plains’ plan (irrigation), : . 4,879,847 90 
 Crude disposal, : : i . 8,780,022 88 
 Precipitation (plan ataabuady; é : . 38,699,504 00 
 
 If the methods of irrigation or filtration be adopted, either 
 at Seekonk Plains or at Warwick, it will involve a large 
 addition to the annual cost of pumping over pumping into 
 precipitation tanks, owing to the difference of elevation to 
 which it will be necessary to pump the sewage in order to 
 reach these places. ; 
 
 The same thing occurs if crude disposal be adopted, the 
 water having to be pumped to a higher level than for pre- 
 cipitation. 
 
 The estimates given for the various plans include the con- 
 struction only, and therefore do not show the relative cost 
 of pumping or of maintenance. 
 
 The idea unfortunately prevails to a greater or less extent 
 that sewage is of value and may be disposed of at a profit. 
 The sooner we rid ourselves of this erroneous notion, the 
 better shall we be prepared to justly consider the subject. 
 
 The following quotations are taken from the second and 
 final report of the Royal Commission on Metropolitan Sew- 
 age Discharge, appointed by the British Government for 
 the purpose of inquiring into the effects of the discharge of 
 the sewage of the metropolis into the river Thames. This 
 report was made in 1884. 
 
 Testimony given by 
 
 Sir Robert Rawlinson. 
 
 *¢16,990-1. The Edinburgh case is an instructive one. It ought 
 to be considered that sewage to have value must have certain natural 
 
16 CITY .DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 
 
 facilities, such as cheap land, and a free outlet to the sea. On 
 neither side of the estuary of the Thames could you attempt to carry 
 out such an experiment as the Craigentinny experiment. 
 
 ‘¢16,996-7. If sewage is to be valued at what it is worth the whole 
 year round, you could not put more than $d. per ton upon it, but if 
 you valued it at what it is worth for a farmer to take it»when he 
 wanted it, and to leave it alone when he did not want it, he could 
 afford to pay you 2d. a ton for it. 
 
 ‘17,076. Sewage cultivation depends on the weather. The sea- 
 sons in this climate are uncertain and unfavourable. 
 
 ‘sSewage produce is not like ordinary produce, it must either be 
 used at once or it is wasted. 
 
 ‘©17,079-84. Utilizmg the produce from a sewage farm to the 
 extent of 30,000 or 40,000 acres would be a wonderful thing. 
 
 ‘*Then again prejudice is excited against sewage-grown produce, 
 which very much retards its sale, so that neither the milk nor the 
 vegetables from a sewage farm will be bought if it is known. This 
 prejudice, however, is not well grounded.” 
 
 Sir John Lawes. 
 
 **18,209-11. My impression is that if you distribute sewage 
 upon land you gain nothing by it. It is of small value in the state 
 in which you have it, being enormously diluted with water, and that 
 water being very difficult to get rid of, especially in the valley of the 
 Thames, and the quantity being greater in winter when you want 
 your land drier. You have a rich soil all the way:down the valley 
 of the Thames, not at all suited to take sewage ; you have everything 
 against you. 
 
 **18,253-6, 18,320. To enable a town to dispose of its sewage 
 profitably it should be situated on the top of a hill; it should have at 
 its disposal a sufficient area of light porous soil under pasture, this 
 land being at a sufficient distance from houses for the sewage not 
 to be a nuisance. Not one of these advantages is possessed by Lon- 
 don, but the contrary. 
 
 ‘© 18,297-308. The Craigentinny meadows have everything in 
 their favour. ; 
 
 ‘©18,320. Sewage would command a certain value if delivered on 
 the land free of expense, but its value is not sufficient to pay for the 
 cost of pumping and distribution to any distance. 
 
 ‘*Tt is admitted at the present time that the agricultural value of 
 sewage is much less than the cost of its removal from towns, and 
 that the towns and not the country must bear the greater portion of 
 the charges connected with its removal. 
 
 ‘* Whatever process may be adopted the outlay must be very great | 
 and entail an additional burthen upon the ratepayers of the metrop- 
 
 olis.”’ 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. se 
 
 Dr. Voelcker. 
 
 *¢ 18,326. The manurial value of sewage, generally speaking, is 
 of a negative character, 7. ¢., it costs more to utilize it than it is 
 intrinsically worth.” 
 
 Dr. Tidy. 
 
 *©18,571. The local authorities always will getit into their heads 
 that they ought to make their sewage pay; whereas sewage is a 
 great ugly thing that one has to spend money on to prevent its being 
 a trouble and a cause of nuisance. You will never make sewage 
 pay, Iam convinced of that. This idea of making it pay is a pure 
 myth.” 
 
 Sir F. Abel. 
 
 ** 19,047. I agree that it is impossible to deal with the sewage 
 in reference to its manurial value.” 
 
 Mr. Baldwin Latham. 
 
 *¢19,220-31. ‘There is no doubt in my mind that where land has 
 to be acquired at a very expensive rate by sanitary authorities, there 
 is no process that will ever pay for the utilizing of sewage. It must 
 be looked upon as a dead loss in whatever way you have to deal with 
 it. The question is how to get rid of it most cheaply. 
 
 ‘* Croydon has a very large farm close to London, with consequently 
 every facility to get rid of the produce, and in some years the author- 
 ities have lost as much as 12,000/. a year by applying the sewage to 
 the land. It is very porous soil, and very suitable for applying sew- 
 age. 
 
 ‘*In many farms the actual return per acre is very large, but it is 
 swallowed up by the expenses on the other side.” 
 
 Alderman Avery. 
 *¢ 19,546. I am very much afraid that every 7s. 6d. that we 
 
 obtain from the sewage farm costs us rather more than 7s. 6d. to 
 produce.” : 
 
 “Mr. Bailey-Denton, one of the strongest advocates of the 
 application of sewage to land, puts in (Q. 18,653-9) a table 
 of 20 towns so treated, showing a profit per acre sometimes 
 as high as 7/.,and giving an average of 2/. 13s. This, 
 however, is simply the difference between the expenditure 
 on production and the income from crops obtained. It does 
 not include interest on capital, nor the cost of pumping, nor 
 rent of land. He adds: 
 
 3 
 
18 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 “18,710, I think we ought not to get rid of such valuable matter 
 altogether. If you cannot turn it to account at present, the time 
 may come when you will be able to do so. I look forward to the 
 time when there will be found a means of turning sewage to profita- 
 ble account.”’ 
 
 ‘<The most remarkable evidence, however, on this point 
 is that of Mr. L. S. Brundell, a civil engineer much expe- 
 rienced in sewage works, and for many years engineer to 
 the corporation of Doncaster. His experience is especially 
 pertinent to this question, as his opening statement will 
 show. 
 
 ‘17,786. In 1872, when the Doncaster Sewage Farm was com- 
 pleted, there was a great idea that sewage was avery valuable thing ; 
 and as the corporation were not able to meet with a tenant in the 
 ordinary way, four of us, none of us farmers, but all engineers, took 
 the farm upon a lease for 14 years. The four consisted of myself, 
 my brother, and James and Edward Easton, and we thought that 
 we would see what could be done with the sewage under what we 
 believed would be very intelligent and scientific management. We 
 took the Doncaster Sewage Farm, and have worked it ever since, for 
 11 years, and we now know pretty well what the value of the sew- 
 age 1s, which we did not know then. We shared the general im- 
 pression that sewage was a very valuable thing if properly applied.” 
 
 ‘¢ Mr. Brundell describes fully the circumstances, and the 
 result is that the outside net value of the sewage at Doncas- 
 ter, utilizing it as best they can, is 3007. a year. The 
 average quantity is 1,134,339 tons a year, which gives a 
 net value of about ;4, of a penny per ton, or the farm being 
 300 acres, it is equal to 1/. per acre per annum. But this 
 does not include interest of money, or the cost of pumping, 
 which is done by the corporation and costs 300/. a year. So 
 that the value of the sewage is just about the cost of the 
 pumping, having sunk the money in carrying out the 
 works. It is admitted, however, as some compensation, 
 that the land is, by the application of the sewage, becoming 
 permanently improved, and consequently increased in 
 value.” 
 
 ‘We may observe that it would be difficult to find per- 
 sons more capable than the gentlemen who tried the experi- 
 ment above described.” 
 
~REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 19 
 
 "193. There can be no doubt that the preponderance of 
 the evidence is against the idea that the sewage of the 
 metropolis can, at present, be applied by Irrige ition so as to 
 be a source of profit to the ratepayers.” 
 
 “198. Looking now to the whole of the evidence we 
 have obtained on the prospect of profit from the utilization 
 
 of sewage, we are of opinion— 
 
 “1. That the most likely mode to obtain a profit from the 
 utilization of sewage is by irrigation; but that, in the 
 present state of knowledge of the subject, there is no hope 
 of any town doing so consistently with the due attainment 
 of the more important object, the purification of the sewage. 
 In some very favourable cases (as in Edinburgh) a profit 
 may be made without purification, and very frequently the 
 purification may be effected without profit, but the two can- 
 not apparently be combined.” 
 
 * * * * * * * * * 
 
 “217. It will be now understood that the essential dif- 
 ference between the intermittent filtration system and that 
 of ordinary broad irrigation is as follows: 
 
 “Broad irrigation means the distribution of sewage over a 
 large surface of ordinary agricultural ground, having in view 
 a maximum growth of vegetation (consistently with due 
 
 purification) for the amount of sewage supplied. 
 
 “Filtration means the concentration of sewage, at short 
 intervals, on an area of specially chosen porous ground, as 
 small as will absorb and cleanse it; not excluding vegeta- 
 tion, but making the produce of secondary importance. 
 
 The intermittency of application is a stre gua non even in 
 suitably constituted soils, wherever complete success is 
 aimed at. No instance of failure, says Mr. Denton, can be 
 pointed out where careful underdrainage and suitable prepa- 
 ration of surface with proper periods of rest have been 
 adopted; whereas the cases are unfortunately becoming 
 numerous in which defective effluents are discharged, and 
 considerable nuisance is created on the surface, when large 
 quantities of sewage are poured on without regulated peri- 
 odical application.” 
 
2() CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 “221. With regard to filtration through land, we are of 
 opinion,— ; 
 
 “1. That the process has great scientific merit, and offers 
 valuable practical advantages for the disposal of sewage in 
 situations where broad irrigation is impracticable, and where 
 land suitable for filtration can be obtained. 
 
 “2. That, however, it appears desirable, when the area of 
 land is considerably reduced, that the sewage should be pre- 
 viously treated by some efficient process for removing the 
 sludge. 
 
 “3. That an arrangement of this kind would be applica- 
 ble to the metropolis, as we shall explain more fully here- 
 after.” 
 
 Further quotations from this and from other authorities 
 could be made, but these are sufficient to show that it is the 
 opinion of those best able to judge, that sewage disposal as 
 a general thing cannot be made profitable, but on the con- 
 trary will prove an expense. 
 
 Some have feared that precipitation works located at Field’s 
 Point would constitute a nuisance. This point is well met 
 by the following quotations, and by a letter and report on 
 the sewerage works at Coventry, received from J. C. Mel- 
 liss, an engineer of very high repute in England. 
 
 Mr. Melliss writes: 
 
 ‘¢ Lonpon, February 9, 1886. 
 ‘* DEAR SIR: 
 
 ‘¢T am in receipt of yours of 29th January last, wherein you ask 
 for my unqualified opinion as to nuisance or inconvenience arising 
 from precipitation works. My opinion is founded upon some 12 or 
 14 years’ practical experience with such works in this country, and 
 it is most decidedly that if precipitation works are properly designed 
 and constructed and properly managed, any person outside of the 
 walls of the works would not know of their existence. In other 
 words, there is no smell perceptible outside the enclosive walls of the 
 works. 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 21 
 
 ‘* This view of precipitation works is now generally accepted by 
 authorities in this country. There are, of course, many people who, 
 from inexperience, are alarmed at the mention of such works being 
 anywhere, but it is a necessity that they must be somewhere, and if 
 properly carried out, they are less objectionable than tanneries, gas 
 works, skin works, and many other manufactories. The accompa- 
 nying plan and photograph I prepared six years ago to show the 
 proximity of the Coventry precipitation works to houses of a good 
 class. These works have been in operation about 11 years and there 
 is no complaint. Whilty Abbey is a fine old mansion, and the gen- 
 tleman (Mr. Petre) who lives there is quite satisfied. 
 
 ‘¢ Two years ago I put up and started precipitation works at Leyton, 
 dealing with a population of 40,000 persons. You will see by the 
 photograph I send you that the works are surrounded by houses at 
 no great distance, and not only is there no complaint, but the Clerk 
 to the Board of Health told me only this week that people pass by 
 and do not even notice the works. JI am now designing works for a 
 portion of the Thames Valley, viz.: Richmond, Kew, Mortlake, 
 ete., etc., where there are parks and good houses in abundance. 
 Then again, there are houses in close proximity to the precipitation 
 works of Wimbledon, Birmington, and especially at Chiswick, where 
 the precipitation works, dealing with a population of 20,000 persons, 
 are only 270 yards distant from the Park gate and lodge, and only 
 420 yards from the residence itself of ‘ Devonshire House,’ the resi- 
 dence of the Duke of Devonshire, one of the most wealthy noblemen 
 in this country. Further than this, the Duke himself sold the land 
 for these works, and to show that his residence is not injured he has 
 recently let it to the Marquis of Bute, another very wealthy man, 
 who is now residing there. Iam sure these facts ought to doa 
 great deal to allay alarm in the minds of your citizens. * * * * 
 
 ‘¢ Although I am satisfied that if properly designed and managed 
 there is no smell outside of the works themselves, I would, on senti- 
 mental grounds, not select to place precipitation works in a park if 
 any other site were available. * * * * 
 
 ‘¢ Of this you may be quite confident, that persons residing at a dis- 
 tance of 2,000 feet from the works would not know that they were 
 near to any works of the kind. 
 
22 CITY DOCUMENT. [Nowave 
 
 ‘¢T conclude, of course, that your works will embrace all the 
 modern and most approved arrangements and appliances, and that it 
 is intended they shall be properly managed. * * * * 
 
 ‘¢ Yours very truly, 
 J.C. MELLISS. 
 ‘¢SAMUEL M. Gray, C. E.” 
 
 The following report on the Coventry Sewage Works 
 accompanied the above letter : 
 
v< Ter veg 
 » oe.’ 4 
 . ies 
 
 .* ~* 
 
 a ata 
 an ae 
 
 BOs 885 'E 
 
PLAN OF 
 E COVENTRY SEWAGE WORKS AND VICINITY 
 AT WHITLEY. 
 
 Scale. 
 700 
 
 ORDNANCE MAP OF WHITLEY. 
 Scale 1 Inch to a Mile. 
 
 NOTE. Position of Coventry Sewage 
 Works, tinted Red ux. 
 
 VIEW OF WORKS 
 
 FROM SOUTH EAST. 
 
 WHITLEY 
 ABBEY 
 
 NOW OCCLIPLER —e “4 B ; 
 Quarters ffs ,, Se sy ; Noten Saee = a 
 / Ps ee a Ne Nee The Restdence of E.. Petre, Esq’: 
 
 Wire ed hy Po AGRA 
 
 te Royal Oak {ar 
 
 & Téa Gardria 
 
 Re. Noe of J. Cole. 
 Mee aque 
 
 . The Sherburne is a smail 
 shallow Stream, often, containing 
 wl \ little else than the Eftlaent Water 
 8&1 Effluent Water Culvert & Outfall leading 13. Man Holes & Ventilating Shatis to 1 - Sa : \ from the Sewage Works. 
 
 . , uildings contauung Milburns Sludge Drying 
 A ery. ‘ ene. The wholo of these a Benet by ‘the from Tanks on to Filtering Beas. Undergound Drains. 
 
 J.C. MELLISS, 
 
 2 Buildings comprising Straining House. Engine House with eo o : ie ; . 
 OHP Sum ee aie ieepe aces Vats, Office, \\\\ aint, are now ur disuse . 9. Effluent Water Wars. . 14. ae pieatid eal are REFERENCES 
 & Chenucal Works. These latter os denoted by the \\\\tint, — 5 Implement. Store, part of Old orks. WE fnent Hater Outtill from Filter Beds into _ Water on to Filrering f | Bae —— 
 Pe Tego 6. Precipitation Tanks each containing 225,000 Gallons. | Ruer Sherburne. 5, Embankmants tormung Pathways . mg, 
 3 Building contairang lame Mixing Vats.& 10 HP SteanvEngine. 7. Underground Sludge Chambers. 1. Man Holes. = \ 
 a = SSS == ee ee 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 23 
 
 THE 
 RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION, 
 LIMITED. 
 
 THE COVENTRY SEWAGE WORKS, 
 SITUATED AT WHITLEY, 
 
 ILLUSTRATED BY PLANS, VIEWS, &C., SHOWING THEIR CLOSE PROX- 
 IMITY TO FIRST-CLASS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THEIR PERFECT 
 FREEDOM FROM ALL NUISANCE, AND THEIR COMPLETE SANI- 
 TARY AND ECONOMICAL SUCCESS. 
 
 Dr. VOELCKER, F. R. S., says:—‘‘ Numerous experiments with all 
 kinds of precipitating agents, and the experience of others on a large 
 scale, have led me to the conclusion that by far the most efficacious and, 
 on the whole, the most economical precipitating agent is crude sulphate 
 of alumina, assisted by the addition of just enough lime to render the 
 effluent slightly alkaline, and to effect the complete precipitation of the 
 alumina from the crude sulphate.”—Journal of the Royal Agricultural 
 Society of England, No. xxviii. 
 
 OCTOBER, 1880. 
 
 DIRECTORS. 
 
 Tue Rigutr Hon. THE LoRD ELIBANK (Chairman), Darn Hall, Eddles- 
 ton, N. B. 
 
 Mayor GEORGE MANNERS ONSLOW, Naval & Military Club, Picca- 
 dilly, W. 
 
 H. FREDERICK TWYNAM, Esq., 10, Down Street, Piccadilly, W. 
 DOUGLAS ARTHUR ONSLOW, Esq., J.P., 14, Waverley Place, St. 
 John’s Wood, N. W. 
 LONDON BANKERS. 
 THE LONDON & WESTMINSTER BANK, St. James’s Square Branch 
 
 SOLICITORS. 
 Messrs. TUCKER & LAKE, 4, Serle Street, Lincoln’s Inn, W. C. 
 
 MANAGING DIRECTOR. 
 DOUGLAS ARTHUR ONSLOW, Esq. 
 
 AUDITOR. 
 ULYSSES LATREILLE, Fsq., 232, Gresham House, E. C. 
 ENGINEER. 
 JOHN CHARLES MELLISS, Esq., C. E., A. Memb. Inst. C. E. 
 OFFICES. 
 
 232, GRESHAM HOUSE, OLD BROAD STREET, LONDON, E. C. 
 
24 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 THE RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION, 
 
 LIMITED. 
 
 The Coventry Works of the Rivers Purification Associa- 
 tion, Limited, have now been in continuous operation for a 
 period of more than six years. The complete success 
 attending the operations there, both in a sanitary as well as 
 an economical point of view, induces the Association to give 
 publicity to the accompanying testimony, of impartial 
 authorities, with a view of aiding the removal of that preju- 
 dice which has so long existed against sewage purification 
 works in the immediate locality of residential property. 
 The Association, in taking this step, would wish to express 
 their thanks to those gentlemen who have voluntarily 
 afforded their testimony, and who, by so doing, are not only 
 rendering them assistance in their work, but also supporting 
 an undertaking which supplies a long-felt national want. 
 
 The facts to which the Association would ask attention 
 
 are as follow: 
 
 I. That sewage works, where a good and proper 
 process is employed and thoroughly carried 
 out, if conducted with ordinary care, are quite 
 free from causing any nuisance. 
 
 II. That the effluent water obtained at Coventry is 
 shown, by analyses of effluent waters produced 
 at various sewage works made by Dr. Angus 
 Smith, F. R. S., and Dr. William Wallace, 
 F. R. 8. E., City Analyst for Glasgow, to be 
 the best. 
 
 II. That the cost of the operations at Coventry 
 will be found upon examination and investi- 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 25 
 
 gation to be cheaper than lime treatment, 
 modifications of lime treatment, or land irri- 
 gation in the majority of instances. 
 
 IV. That the means now being adopted at Coven- 
 try to reduce the sludge to a portable condi- 
 tion will have the effect of still further reduc- 
 ing the cost, as hitherto the manure (in con- 
 sequence of its non-portable state) has not 
 found a ready sale, and it is now confidently 
 predicted that it will do so. 
 
 V. That the success which has followed the oper- 
 ations at Coventry (where salts of alumina, 
 iron, &c., are used under eminent chemical 
 advice) cannot be employed to encourage the 
 lime, or modifications of lime treatment, or 
 any untried process. 
 
 The following correspondence dates from the establish- 
 ment of the works in April, 1574, up to the present time, 
 and shows the efficiency of the operations and their complete 
 freedom from any nuisance. 
 
 FINHAM PARK, KENILWORTH, 
 
 14th July, 1874. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 In answer to your inquiry as to the pollution of the River Sher- 
 bourne, I beg to say it has very considerably abated since the late altera- 
 tions at the Sewage Works. I have not seen a dead fish since, but have 
 noticed large numbers of them enjoying themselves by flirting out of the 
 water during the late hot weather. 
 
 There is a considerable quantity of mud on the banks, the accumulation 
 of past time, which, no doubt, the winter floods will carry away, and 
 then, Ihave no doubt, we shall find a still further improvement. 
 
 Believe me, dear sir, 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 JAMES WESTON. 
 J. C. MELLISS, Esq. 
 
 4 
 
26 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 FINHAM PARK, KENILWORTH, 
 23rd February, 1875. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 Ilaid your note of the 19th instant aside, and did not think of it 
 until to-day. 
 
 Respecting putting my communications in print, you are quite at lib- 
 erty to do so; and what I have said to you on former occasions is fully 
 confirmed by what I have noticed of the river since. 
 
 Believe me, dear sir, 
 Yours faithfully, 
 JAMES WESTON. 
 
 J. C. MELLISS, Esq. 
 
 WHITLEY VILLA, NEAR COVENTRY, 
 26th February, 1877. 
 DEak SIR, 
 
 In reply to your letter, I have much pleasure in stating that I con- 
 sider the works and process for purifying the River Sherbourne are per- 
 fectly successful. Living as I do in close proximity to the works, I 
 should be the first to suffer were they obnoxious or offensive, but I am 
 glad to say I have no fault to find, and consider Whitley as healthy as 
 any place in the district. 
 
 I may add incidentally that the value of the property here has lately 
 increased, I myself having raised my tenants’ rents. 
 I remain, dear sir, 
 Yours truly, 
 THOMAS L. GILLOTT. 
 E. F. CoDvINGTON, Esq. 
 
 WHITLEY ABBEY, COVENTRY, 
 5th March, 1877. 
 DeEaR SIR, 
 
 In reply to your letter, I can confidently state that the River Sher- 
 bourne has been very much improved since the Sewage Works at Coven- 
 try have been in operation; the water at present is perfectly clear, and 
 as far as I have been able tu judge, the works and process appear to me 
 
 to be successful. 
 Yours faithfully, 
 
 EDWARD PETRE. 
 E. F. CODDINGTON, Esq. 
 
 At a meeting of the Council of the City of Coventry, held at the Justice 
 Room, Saint Mary’s Hall, in the said City, on Tuesday, the 27th day of 
 March, 1877, 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 27 
 
 Mr. ALDERMAN BANKS, Mayor, in the Chair, 
 Ir WAS RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY— 
 
 That the system for treating the Sewage of this City by precipitation 
 having been in use since the 30th April, 1874 (a period of nearly three 
 years), this Council are well satisfied with its sanitary success, and that 
 the same be certified under the Common Seal and given to the Rivers 
 Purification Association, Limited, with a statement appended thereto, 
 that this Council have entered into a contract with them to continue to 
 carry on the said system of purifying the Sewage of this City in consid- 
 eration of an adequate annual subsidy to the said Association. 
 
 In testimony whereof the Common 
 Seal of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Citi- 
 zens of the City of Coventry is hereunto 
 affixed the 27th day of March, 1877. 
 
 (Signed) J. E. BANKS, 
 Mayor. 
 
 [Seal of the Corporation. ] 
 
 WHITLEY ABBEY, COVENTRY, 
 8th August, 1877. 
 My Dear Sir, 
 
 I was very much pleased on my return home, about a fortnight ago, 
 to see and feel the improvement in the state of the River Sherbourne. 
 There is really nothing to complain of now, and if it can only be main- 
 tained in its present condition I do not think I am likely to trouble your 
 Corporation any more on the subject. I must at the same time tender 
 my thanks to the Corporation for the successful efforts they have made 
 
 towards remedying this nuisance. 
 I remain, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 EDWARD PETRE. 
 
 T. Browett, Esq., Town Clerk, Coventry. 
 
 Notre.—tThe fact that this gentleman had been, previously to the erection of the pres- 
 tent sewage works, in litigation with the Corporation for polluting the river, increases 
 he strength of the testimony given by his letter. 
 
 RoyaL Oak INN AND TEA GARDENS, WHITLEY, 
 October, 5th, 1880. 
 
 To the RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION. 
 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 I have now kept this Inn for four years, and during that period I 
 have never had occasion tocomplain of any nuisance arising either from 
 
28 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 your works or the filter beds, notwithstanding that the latter join my Tea 
 Gardens, and the works are so close; nor have my numerous customers 
 ever found fault, or my trade been injured. 
 Yours truly, 
 WALTER BUTLER. 
 
 14, Priory Row, COVENTRY, 
 October 11th, 1880. 
 GENTLEMEN, 
 
 Having lived at Whitley ever since the sewage works were opened, I 
 have great pleasure in saying that I have never perceived any disagree- 
 able smell arising from them, and the river which flows past my house, 
 and which nine years ago was almost unbearable, is now clear and no 
 nuisance whatever. 
 
 Yours, &c., 
 J. G. C. GRAHAM. 
 Messrs. THE RIVERS PURIFICATION ASSOCIATION, LIMITED. 
 
 WHITLEY ABBEY, COVENTRY, 
 
 18th December, 1880. 
 DEAR SIR, 
 
 I have great pleasure in confirming my letters of the 5th March and 
 8th August, 1877, as to the Purification of the River Sherbourne by your 
 Association, JI have had no reason to complain since that date; nor dol 
 believe that those living in the neighbourhood of the Works are subjected 
 
 to any nuisance by them. 
 I remain, 
 
 Yours faithfully, 
 E. F. CODDINGTON, Esq., EDWARD PETRE. 
 Manager, Rivers Purification Association, Whitley. 
 
 The Local Government Board, with the object of sanction- 
 ing sewage purification by precipitation or chemical treat- 
 ment, recently caused an investigation of certain processes 
 which are in operation in different parts of England to be 
 made. These investigations were conducted by Dr. Angus 
 Smith, F. R.S., one of the inspectors under the Rivers Pol- 
 lution Prevention Act of 1876. Dr. Angus Smith says in his 
 report dated October, 1879—*“ The use of precipitation has 
 ‘‘a decided advantage in wet weather, as it raises the purity 
 “of the Coventry water above the Aldershot wet specimen.” 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 29 
 
 And further—“ The Coventry efluent went into a stream 
 “which was very impure, and it might, so far as appearance 
 “went, pass into a shallow mountain stream without being 
 “noticed.” 
 
 The difficulty hitherto experienced in the disposal of 
 sludge has received much and careful consideration (as no 
 works can be considered satisfactory until the sludge is 
 properly dealt with), and after careful investigation and 
 practical experiments with various systems of pressing, the 
 Rivers Purification Association have succeeded in one which 
 in every respect carries out the necessary requirements with 
 simplicity and good results, viz., that of Messrs. S. H. 
 Johnson & Co., of Stratford, E., and Mr. N. Nutter, their 
 agent, 71, Cornhill, E. C. They have now perfected their 
 Coventry works by the introduction of this system, and 
 what has so long been known as the sludge difficulty has 
 been effectually overcome. It is confidently believed that 
 in consequence of this mode of dealing with the sludge it 
 will, in future, find a more ready sale than it has hitherto. 
 It is an important fact to be borne in mind that the process 
 in use at. Coventry produces much less bulk of sludge than 
 other processes, and only one-half as much as that produced 
 by lime treatment, while in quality it bears a much higher 
 manurial valuew* Ptr * 0 * 
 
 That the cost of the system employed at Coventry is less 
 than that involved by land irrigation and sewage farming, in 
 a majority of cases, is fully shown in pamphlets published 
 by the Rivers Purification Association in October, 1879, 
 and August, 1881, as well as elsewhere. That it is less 
 than lime treatment is shown by the fact that it costs only 
 £3 3s. 7d. per million gallons of sewage; while at Birming- 
 ham and Bradford, where lime is employed, the cost is 
 respectively £5 2s. 61d. and £3 4s. 94d. per million gallons. 
 And this difference of cost is not due altogether to the dis- 
 posal of the larger quantity of sludge produced by lime 
 
30 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 treatment ; the chemicals employed at Coventry are also less 
 expensive than lime, being for sewage without dye 12s. 10d. 
 per million gallons, while lime treatment costs 14s. per 
 million gallons. : 
 
 The following quotations are from the report of the Royal 
 Commission before referred to: 
 
 “169. In 1880 the Corporation of Glasgow (as the Bir- 
 mingham Corporation had done nearly ten years before ) 
 appointed a committee to inquire into the various methods of 
 sewage treatment, with a view to the purification of the 
 Clyde. We may give a few extracts from their report, 
 dated 1st September 1880. 
 
 ‘‘ Probably the only proposition of universal acceptance is that crude 
 sewage cannot be disposed of anywhere, by any means, without 
 nuisance orrisk of nuisance. Whether poured into arunning stream, 
 a tidal river, or the open sea, or distributed on an extended area of 
 land, it is certain that, at some time or other, it will make its pres- 
 ence felt. Some clarifying process whereby the whole of the sus- 
 pended impurities, at least, shall be removed, seems to be an indis- 
 pensable preface even to discharge into the sea or to irrigation. 
 
 ‘¢ There are processes of precipitation now in operation which give 
 an effluent capable of being discharged into a river with perfect 
 inoffensiveness, and without sensibly destroying its purity, provided 
 always that the volume of the sewage is small compared with that 
 of the river. 
 
 ‘* The success or otherwise of a precipitation process depends largely 
 upon details in the arrangement, construction, and management of 
 the various parts of the work. The best process may fail by neglect 
 of these details. No offence originates from the mere treatment of 
 the sewage when these details are attended to. 
 
 ‘The sewage sludge is the troublesome, not to say dangerous, ele- 
 ment in all such processes, especially that from lime precipitation, 
 which changes more rapidly than that produced by the action of 
 alumina or oxide of iron. ‘The first and absolutely essential pre- 
 liminary to the adoption of any method of treatment by precipita- 
 tion is to arrange for the systematic removal of the sludge from the 
 works. To begin sewage treatment without this is sure to end in a 
 gigantic nuisance, and to become involved in an almost hopeless 
 struggle to suppress it. 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 31 
 
 ‘¢ Sewage sludge can be disposed of in four ways; it may be com- 
 pressed into portable cakes; or it may be conveyed in a semi fluid 
 condition to the open sea; or it may be used to make up waste land ; 
 or it may be dug into ground, so producing a highly fertile soil. 
 
 ‘¢ Whatever be the process of chemical purification to which the 
 sewage is subjected, the effluent is still impure, and will putrefy and 
 give off noxious gas if kept for some time; and we know of no way 
 in which the purification can be completed but oxidation. Filtration 
 through cultivated land, 2. e., irrigation, is probably the best means. 
 But oxidation of the effluent may in most cases be effected by the 
 simple and natural process of running it into the nearest watercourse, 
 when, if the proportion of clean water be sufficient, the organic 
 matter will be gradually oxidised, and the effluent water will not 
 become putrid or offensive in any way ever in warm weather.” 
 
 “Mr. Harrison reported on the 28th February, 1884, in 
 favour of the application. The following passages of his 
 report refer to the main objections. He said that the chem- 
 icals proposed— 
 
 ‘*Act both chemically and mechanically, and effect not only clarifi- 
 cation and deodorization of the sewage, but a considerable amount of 
 purification,: by diminishing the quantity of organic carbon and 
 nitrogen in solution in the sewage. 
 
 ‘¢Tam not aware that there was any evidence which proved that any 
 nuisance would arise from the process if it were properly conducted. 
 
 ‘¢ The joint board proposed to adopt the best known chemical sys- 
 tem. 
 
 ‘*T have seen the process of compressing the sludge at Aylesbury 
 
 and Leyton, and am satisfied that it can be carried out without creat- 
 ing any nuisance. The cakes formed are firm and almost devoid of 
 smell. I do not anticipate that any nuisance will arise either at 
 Mortlake or Rainham from the method of disposing of the sludge. 
 - ‘* J feel confident that under good management the treatment of the 
 sewage as proposed would not create any nuisance in the neighbor- 
 hood, and that the effluent might be discharged into the Thames at 
 all times of the tide without any danger of its injuriously affecting 
 that river.” 
 
 “232. At first it was supposed that the precipitate would 
 be valuable as manure, and some trouble was taken to dry the 
 sludge and bring it into a convenient shape for transport and 
 sale. But since its low value has become better known, it 
 has been found necessary to get rid of it in the most con- 
 venient way possible. This has been found difficult, and the 
 
32 CITY DOCUMENT. [No. 27. 
 
 manipulation and storage of the sludge have been trouble- 
 some, expensive, and the cause of great nuisance. 
 
 “Of late years, however, a mode of treating it has been 
 introduced which has been of great benefit. This is by an 
 ingenious machine now used in many manufacturing pro- 
 cesses called a ‘filter press.’ It is so contrived that when 
 a portion of the sludge is introduced into it and subjected to 
 mechanical pressure a large proportion of the water is 
 squeezed out, and the sludge becomes consolidated into com- 
 pact cakes. These cakes are found to contain about 50 per 
 cent. of water, and consequently the amount of precipitate 
 becomes reduced to 90 or 100 grains per gallon of sewage, 
 giving 1 ton of pressed sludge for, say, 165,000 gallons. 
 
 “The cost of this pressing process is considerable, being 
 given by Mr. Mansergh, Q. 19,211, at about 3s. 6d. per ton 
 of pressed cake. But there is no doubt that it has been of 
 great advantage to the chemical processes for treating sew- 
 age, as it has removed one of the most formidable objections 
 to which they have been liable. 
 
 “Some of us have visited sewage works where the sludge 
 presses are in action, and we have found that the process 
 can be carried on without danger of causing nuisance to the 
 surrounding neighbourhood ; and that, when suitable chem- 
 icals are used, the cakes have no unpleasant smell. 
 
 “Tf a market can be found for them on account of any fer- 
 tilizing value they may contain, they are in the best form for 
 sale and for application; or if any other mode of disposal 
 is necessary, the form is convenient for transport. 
 
 “We need not recapitulate the evidence in regard to the 
 sludge generally ; there is plenty of testimony to the diffi- 
 culty it has caused, but we think the fact that this difficulty 
 can now be got over, at a certain cost, has been sufficiently 
 proved. 
 
 “ We may therefore confine our extracts to references to 
 the peculiar case of the metropolis.” 
 
 * Possible Nuisance from the Works. 
 
 “236. On this head it must suffice to say that having 
 visited works where precipitating processes are in opera- 
 tion, we do not anticipate that, if they are constructed and 
 managed with proper knowledge and care, they will cause 
 any material nuisance to the neighbourhood where they are 
 situated.” 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 33 
 
 “General Remarks. 
 
 “238. There are two great advantages in the adoption 
 of a precipitation process. In the first place it may be 
 brought into action more speedily than any other remedy ; 
 and, secondly, if it should be desirable at any time to adopt 
 some different plan, it can be abandoned, with only the com- 
 paratively small loss of the outlay on the fixed works.” 
 
 fifth. That he show in detail the cost of the parts necessary for pre- 
 cipitation in the plan recommended. 
 
 ESTIMATED COST OF THE PARTS OF THE WORKS 
 NECESSARY FOR PRECIPITATION. 
 
 Tanks, ; : : : : ; eeeoo L000 200 
 
 Connections, floats, etc., : . : . 14,000 00 
 
 Filter press and engine, ; ; : . 30,000 00 
 
 Buildings, storehouse, etc., . , : . 20,000 00 
 
 $145,300 00 
 
 Sixth. That he show whether manufacturing waste can be discharged 
 into the proposed sewers from the various manufactories. 
 
 MANUFACTURING WASTE. 
 
 On Plate 2, on the line to Olneyville, it will be seen that 
 the sewer, after passing under the Woonasquatucket river, 
 passes below the bottoms of the pump-wells of both the 
 Atlantic and the Riverside mills at such a depth that these 
 mills can drain into the sewer by gravity. ‘The same is true 
 of the line all the way to Manton bridge, shown on Plate 4. 
 Also on Plate 2, the line on Promenade street and Valley 
 street, the top of the sewer is shown as low as the bottom 
 of the river. 
 
 At Allen’s Print Works, on Plate 3, the sewer will be 
 seen passing under the bottom of the trench into which they 
 now empty their waste. Where the West river crosses 
 
 5 
 
34 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 Charles street, the sewer goes under the river, into which river 
 the Silver Spring Bleachery discharges its waste. The same 
 occurs on Branch avenue, near the Wanskuck mills. At 
 Veazie street the line is intended to be low enough to allow 
 of a line to cross under the river, and so on to the Steere 
 mill and thence on to Geneva. 
 
 Seventh. That he also furnish any other general information pertinent 
 to the subject. 
 
 In designing a system of sewerage for a city or town, an 
 important question to be considered is the number of inhab- 
 itants it is best to provide for. 
 
 Some have expressed the opinion that the population 
 determined upon for this city, that of 300,000 inhabitants, 
 was too great a number, and I have therefore prepared an 
 estimate of cost for 200,000 inhabitants, which number I 
 feel confident will not be considered too large by any. It 
 will be seen that the relative cost is not at all in proportion 
 to the number of population provided for. 
 
 ESTIMATE FOR SEWERS TO PROVIDE FOR 200,000 
 PEOPLE, INSTEAD OF FOR 300,000. 
 
 Total length of main intercepting sewers, 65,315 feet, not 
 including the ninth ward. 
 Changing the estimate from 300,000 to 200,000 
 would change the size of about 34,150 feet 
 of mains, reducing them by about two (2) 
 inches in diameter, and would reduce the 
 estimates by about ; Y b . $20,490 00 
 Pumping station, machinery, and conduit to tanks, 1,280 00 
 Precipitation tank, : ; : : s 10,000 00 
 Outfall sewer, . ; : : : : Lice 
 
 Total difference in cost of system between 
 200,000 and 300,000 inhabitants, . ~ $338,495 00 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. oo 
 
 The question of disposing of manufacturing wastes being 
 closely connected in our case with the questions of sewerage 
 and sewage disposal, I have made estimates of the extra 
 cost of constructing sewers, tanks, etc., to receive these 
 wastes. 
 
 This estimate, however, does not include the cost of 
 treating the wastes. The cost of chemically treating manu- 
 facturing wastes will depend much upon their nature. In 
 some cases the wastes act on the town sewage as a pre- 
 cipitant, while in others they do not, and it by no means 
 follows that because it costs a certain amount to treat 
 1,000,000 gallons of town sewage, it will cost as much more 
 to treat an equal additional amount of manufacturing waste. 
 
 The following is the estimated cost due to providing for 
 taking manufacturing waste into the sewers : 
 
 PRESENT ESTIMATE FOR 300,000 PEOPLE, MAN- 
 UFACTURING WASTE. 
 
 To take out the manufacturing waste from main 
 intercepting sewers would change the size of 
 about 49,890 feet of sewer by reducing the 
 size by about 4 inches in diameter and re- 
 ducing estimate by about . : $54,879 O00 
 Ninth ward not changed. 
 Pumping station, machinery and conduit to tanks, 1,980 00 
 One tank, : ; : : : A 20,000 00 
 
 Outfall sewer, . : ? : : 2,000 00 
 
 $78,859 00 
 
 The following description of precipitation is taken from 
 Appendix A. of the City Engineer’s report presented to the 
 city council in 1884: 
 
36 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 * Chemical Precipitation. 
 
 “Chemical precipitation, as the name indicates, consists in 
 adding to the sewage a solution of certain chemicals whose 
 action is to promote the deposition of the solid, and of a por- 
 tion of the dissolved matters in the sewage. The chemicals 
 also act as deodorizers, and to a certain extent as disinfect- 
 ants, thereby rendering the works nearly devoid of offensive 
 odors; thus contrasting strongly with the method of simple 
 subsidence by gravity. 
 
 “The mixture of sewage and chemicals flows into precipita- 
 tion tanks, where it comes to comparative or absolute rest, 
 and from which the effluent flows after the chemical action 
 has taken place, leaving such impurities as have been removed. 
 These impurities, together with the liquids retained by them, 
 form a black fluid which is denominated ‘sludge.’ About 
 ninety per cent. of this sludge is water, the remaining ten 
 per cent. being the impurities obtained from the volume of 
 sewage treated. 
 
 “The disposal of the sludge is a difficulty inherent to pre- 
 cipitation works. In its original condition, containing a 
 large amount of water, it is too fluid to bear transportation 
 in the ordinary manner. It is pumped out of the precipita- 
 tion tanks and allowed to flow, in some instances, upon the 
 adjacent land, where it remains until it loses sufficient moisture 
 by evaporation to allow it to be cut with aspade. To effect 
 this evaporation by exposure to the air requires a great deal 
 of time, during which the sludge gives off certain odors in 
 warm weather which have caused complaint. 
 
 “Various means have been tried to hasten the consolidation 
 of the sludge by artificial means, as by drying upon heated 
 floors after partial draining off of the liquids. The most 
 successful method, however, is that recently perfected by 
 Messrs. S. H. Johnson & Co., of Stratford, England. By 
 this method the liquid portion of the sludge is extracted by 
 pressure in a press of peculiar construction. The press is 
 proyided with a set of ‘cloths’ of stout canvas, which are 
 held together by plates in such a way as to form a series of 
 compartments, into which the sludge is forced by the pressure 
 of compressed air, the liquids escaping through the meshes 
 of the cloth, and the solids being retained within the com- 
 partments formed by the cloths. When all the compartments 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 37 
 
 are filled with the solid substances, the press is opened, and 
 within each compartment is found a solid cake of compressed 
 sludge, nearly devoid of odor and of such compactness that 
 it can be readily handled. The amount of water in the cake 
 is about fifty per cent. of its weight. That is to say, one 
 hundred pounds of solid matter, for example, when precipi- 
 tated from the sewage, entangles within itself about nine 
 hundred pounds of water, forming a liquid sludge. The 
 action of the press is to extract about eight hundred pounds 
 of the water, leaving the one hundred pounds of solids 
 associated with about one hundred pounds of water in the 
 cake of compressed sludge. The liquid extracted from the 
 sludge runs back into the sewer, and passes through the 
 precipitation tanks again. 
 
 “This recent method of treating sludge has removed a great 
 objection to chemical precipitation. The compressed sludge 
 muy be used for manure, it possessing considerable fertiliz- 
 ing value, depending upon the nature of the sewage and of 
 the chemicals used, or it may be used for reclaiming land or 
 for other purposes. 
 
 “The general features of precipitation works may be 
 briefly summarized: mechanical arrangements for separat- 
 ing the grosser solids from the sewage ; others for dissolving 
 the chemicals and incorporating them with the sewage ; tanks 
 of sufficient area and capacity for the precipitation of the 
 impurities, and with channels for the escape of the effluent ; 
 pumping machinery for removing the sludge, and suitable 
 arrangements and machinery for its disposal; buildings for 
 the protection of the works, for the storage of materials, and 
 for the residence of the employés. To these may be added 
 certain facilities for the control of the sewage, both at ordi- 
 nary times and also in case of severe storms, when its 
 volume may exceed the capacity of the precipitation tanks. 
 At such times the sewage being greatly diluted with surface 
 water, the excess may be sent directly to the river through 
 
 overflow weirs, as has been before observed. 
 
 “While these general features are common to all precipi- 
 tation works, the variations in detail, and in particular as 
 to the kind and amount of the chemicals used, are very 
 Sg ULSD hell aa ah 
 
38 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 “The Coventry Process. 
 
 “The Rivers’ Purification Association, limited, which was 
 formed in 1877, ‘does not confine its operations to any par- 
 ticular system for treating sewage, but employs whatever is 
 found to be most suitable and best adapted to the local cir- 
 cumstances and requirements of each place.’ 
 
 “ Although acting upon this basis, the process employed at 
 works which the company is now operating is what is known 
 as the Coventry process of chemical precipitation, the chem- 
 icals used being crude sulphate of alumina, proto-sulphate of 
 iron, and lime. The company at the time of our visit in 
 England was operating the sewage purification works at 
 Coventry, Hertford and Leyton, and their process has been 
 recommended for the sewage works of the Lower Thames Val- 
 ley Main Sewerage District; which if carried out will 
 embrace the sewerage systems of fifteen or twenty towns in 
 the immediate vicinity of London. 
 
 “ At Coventry the effluent from the precipitation tanks is 
 still further purified by filtration through land before it 
 flows into the River Sherbourne. At Hertford the effluent 
 is filtered through coke filters. At Leyton the efiluent flows 
 directly into the stream, which is a branch of the River Lee, 
 without any filtration whatever. 
 
 “The appearance of these efiluents is excellent. They are 
 nearly, if not quite, colorless and possess little or no odor. 
 Their chemical analyses indicate a high degree of purity. 
 The following table gives the results of several analyses of 
 the effluents at Coventry and Hertford, made by Prof. 
 Wanklyn :—* 
 
 * Report of Rivers’ Purification Association. 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 39 
 
 Grains per [imperial] gallon,} [Milligrammes, per kilo, or] 
 
 [or parts per 70,000. ] parts per million. 
 
 PLACE. DATE. 
 
 Solids. Chlorine. | Freeammonia. —pedenp re: 
 
 1878, 
 SOVOULrVee UNG: Tbe!) ops 4.8 MIE arya 1,60 
 CULy Gael frat ee) 6 )5 4.2 18.00 1.00 
 Hepeetal sks ! 4.6 14.00 2.00 
 
 1880. 
 Pertintd widat: 5% ha. 3), 1.5 120 | 0.14 
 Way 265 ak 3) 1.4 1.20 0.10 
 
 ‘¢The works at Leyton have been established quite re- 
 
 cently, and no analyses of the effluent have as yet been 
 published. 
 
 “The sludge obtained by the Coventry process has consid- 
 erable manurial value. Dr. Voelcker* estimated its theo- 
 retical value at 16s. 94d. per ton, and its practical or market 
 value as compared with farm-yard manure at 5s. 6d. to 8s. 4d. 
 per ton. ‘These values refer to sludge containing from fifty 
 to sixty per cent. moisture. Were the moisture still further 
 reduced by drying, the computed value would be somewhat 
 greater. Dr. Wallace estimated its value when air dried, 
 and containing about ten per cent. of moisture, at £1 7s. 2d. 
 The price obtained for it, however, is very much less than 
 these values, which have never been realized. At Coventry 
 and Leyton the sludge, pressed into cakes containing about 
 fifty per cent. of moisture, is sold at from 2s. to 2s. 6d. per 
 ton. The demand for it, however, is not large.” 
 
 While precipitation in its earlier stages was attended with 
 serious difficulties, it must be admitted that great improve- 
 
 *Local Government Board Report, 1876. 
 {Glasgow Sewage Report, 1879. 
 
40 CITY DOCUMENT. [ No. 27. 
 
 ments have been made during the last few years in this method 
 of sewage disposal, particularly as to the manner of treat- 
 ing the sludge. 
 
 It is feared by some that the eftuent from precipitation 
 will be injurious to the life of fish, and with the lime pro- 
 cess it undoubtedly would, but there is ample evidence to 
 show that such fears are groundless when the Coventry or 
 sulphate of alumina process is employed. 
 
 If it be true that by precipitation we waste valuable fer- 
 tilizing qualities, what must be said of the loss by filtration 
 where even the solids or sludge are often sacrificed to purifi- 
 cation, or of the value of this saving by irrigation when we 
 find the extra cost of thus disposing of the sewage far out- 
 weighs the returns therefrom ? 
 
 It may be said that precipitation does not fully purify the 
 sewage ; but if it sufficiently classifies it so that it causes no 
 nuisance, is not this sufficient ? 
 
 Our effluent will flow into a tidal river, and we therefore 
 need not purify the sewage as thoroughly as would be 
 necessary were it emptied into a stream liable to be used for 
 domestic purposes. 
 
 Sheffield, England, has just completed works for disposing 
 of its sewage by precipitation. Frankfort-on-the-Main is 
 also about completing similar works. 
 
 As is stated in the report of the Royal Commission, one 
 advantage in precipitation, aside from the fact that it can be 
 brought into action more speedily than any other plan, is 
 that the cost of the precipitation part of the plant is com- 
 paratively small, and, as was stated in the report of the 
 City Engineer to the Council in 1884, 
 
 “ By combining precipitation with irrigation a much smaller 
 area of land is requisite, and should it hereafter be deemed 
 advisable to adopt some system of irrigation, the proposed 
 precipitation works will form a most useful auxiliary.” 
 
REPORT OF CITY ENGINEER. 4] 
 
 Realizing the truth of Dr. Tidy’s evidence “ that sewage 
 is a great ugly thing that one has to spend money on to 
 prevent its being a trouble and cause a nuisance,” and of 
 ~ Mr. Baldwin Latham’s statement that “it must be looked 
 upon as a dead loss in whatever way you have to deal with it,” 
 and that “the question is how to get rid of it most cheaply,” 
 and recognizing the fact that no sewerage system is com- 
 plete which does not dispose of the sewage without causing 
 a nuisance, still the vital question is, 7Zow can we get rid of 
 our sewage at the least expense and not cause a nuisance 
 thereby ? 
 
 To this I answer, by precipitation. It is the most practi- 
 cable method for this city; more economical than either 
 irrigation or filtration, and capable of being so carried out as 
 to remove all fear of nuisance being caused by the works 
 or the eflluent therefrom. 
 
 SAMUEL M. GRAY, 
 City Hngineer. 
 
ANPTN ‘apeog pron. a4 
 
 mal 
 : ‘yar | 
 Pe : 
 os YP ([AMULOL - <2 en 
 — Wis . 
 ay 2 ee 
 | 
 | 
 y pace) 
 ; serra be, 
 Oy 
 oD i 
 BS 209°... s§ 
 ; ake) | . 
 : t4 Hu i 
 : : 
 - 
 iv) 
 3 “% 
 fee 
 ‘i y 
 = 
 +) 
 Ee ® 
 : i" 
 2 
 | + 
 IS 
 
 cker Av. 
 
Plate l. 
 
 137190 
 
 LN/0d S.0TI14 
 
 (1)! EE SIP SE Yj. A EY ae, “at 7 i a a SAAT ‘appos 1 
 i 00/ 0G og Ei We ap ar - : deaaay ILE ke 
 ay I~, [[PALLOLD = 
 N E x 
 3 > 
 fro 
 | 
 3 | 
 £ 
 ie) 
 o | 
 oD | 
 a 
 5 Ww noaea : 38 
 : tH | 
 Fy a iz 
 § oo 
 « ~ ae 
 wo 
 3 E 
 a 8 
 x o | 
 uu 
 ro) And \ 
 3 4 | | 
 3 
 Bon = 
 2/7 Toy | 
 a8 
 SIIAVOd * 
 6 
 ay~ < 
 SLAZO, he 
 o 
 ie 
 Oo 
 mm Me 
 ¥s io 12 
 yn Oo WEL OL te ai 
 tS ITS wop Furia gy 
 “AK i : 
 Sse1g1I09 se ! ae | Vv) 
 7 | 
 d rs pug Inedeysey | a) 
 s 2 
 Our wop¥urxaT ‘i x | = 
 es 1 | 
 g 4 a0 | xt 
 Ly z| ! she 
 ier tS = 
 a 
 a | 
 “A i“ apreyepy kK 
 IS 2ymleg YY) | 
 vos SE 
 w 
 3 e is 
 E fe) 2 
 b ur ~ 
 IG WHelTeD ad 
 Be OG z 
 5 
 > o S 
 ‘IC PPI LS lo sy 
 < a 
 8 ac = | 
 : ee 
 UW assnx 3 | < 
 S | 
 y IW? mep4aeg = She eels 2 5 
 pe A, o-rTe 
 1 a t 
 ' wi] = l= 
 | a tr 
 | | =| a5 
 ' 
 3| | © 
 ae | 
 — fom sr er 
 i < br} Li 
 | \ = oye 
 1 ‘ 
 | z ie | 
 ee : a 
 \ }) ale 
 | 
 Gla cera Pe ae aoe 
 ) 5 \ 
 nh x ? | 
 a Y | 
 < Q ¢ i 
 a “a 
 faa) 2 * = 
 1 x ie 
 : 26x Wosprie H [~ a 
 xe | yo 
 RS < 
 s) — ae ee 
 yt ] 
 Sup | : = 
 a ofa : 
 4 / 24 Io oO 
 aor | ae 
 UOSPLCEYIY O | Oo 
 rn} \ 
 ws A7TOH | ; 
 VAP aItleid ,\ a “ Fi lL. 
 = a Pe ke | 
 z nS 
 = ee — 
 v +s r LJ 
 2 gS Bu) | s | + 
 3 oe l 39 peosmg — 
 x <a S | — 
 <i Pane E 
 wy US afoo \ %e , | —! 
 c AP UOLLAPT \ = 
 © io) 
 © as Plows a \ Ls Fa 
 6 ere v a 
 Oe ae Bega VAN, ——___|&. __ 2842220 ~ _~-_---=— 
 5 “OE lel Puree |\ a 
 < 
 2S APPT 
 =p 
 ge od 
 ang 
 oh he 
 2 
 < ¥ 
 fx) 1) ies d 
 ag ae | 8 
 ee ee 2 
 es) at 
 eg LJ MO14SY3IAO HILVM wo ====SS== 
 = lL ) NOILWLS ONIdGWOd 
 oO —. 
 eee ie 
 ea = wie 
 © Ke) 
 ao 
 Pee 
 uu (eG 
 folie lee = 
 GI pet = 
 Reaper: (legis tera tr. =e 
 \ > A 
 At Oo pies 4 SS 
 al oi Fame Jal = 
 7 ad Li) 2 
 ec — ~ 
 SUNV| NO|LWiId1I93Ng 
 al ies 
 
an 
 
 Pirate 
 
 x Oak SE., 
 
 Sts 
 
 . Valley 
 
 \leppo. 
 
 8S 
 9 
 < 
 ow 
 ‘29 ala 
 3S YFlH 
 ABM peolg 
 m 
 > 
 RN 
 : 
 incon vie. een ee 
 
 ‘$1030 JI 
 aba y oless Tone, 
 
Os a ee 5 SIRO ajeag jong | 
 ol i al. Of: 04 SOG aoe o9 os A oe o@ poe aan 
 wis 
 0 g 
 ne ee | 
 : | f 
 py oy | 4 
 oF | 
 a 
 a 
 : | 
 "IS aylg } 
 3 | 
 y | 
 9S YS | 48 
  Aempeorg \ : 
 Ss \ 
 2 \ ° 
 \ ae ee 
 ° == a ae een a 
 A. | | , 
 o i 
 YS 111 paesEe FE } 
 <x | | 
 H 
 v Z 
 ~ 5 i 
 S prex lin | | 
 C Ea | 
 a z % | 
 a i f. Ny 
 Fa ad | 
 E | 
 z 3s eurejed \ | 
 5 \ 
 £& 
 A | | 
 s \ | £4 ie | 
 xX | LIHDINLYNOSYNOOM tl 
 > \ is 
 o \ 410 Jey 
 y 2 ; x | 
 > 
 rE \ 
 Oy 
 P AP S/[9a3 py 
 J | 
 n | AS’ YLEMI LN 
 BRAS 1297S \ = 
 = 18 CY LIAUL/LT ‘ 
 BS os eurefeqd \ | Bint LAE O 
 Ca \ Zz 
 P, | < 
 > 
 o ‘IE LAATY I” PLOLC LT | ow 
 ic) | 
 x ‘ IS, a(FBz (ofa e | 
 ‘ is 5 J LPod le 
 \ | R n , 
 ay 
 1p- once | | 
 . : \ | = 
 Le) \ | 
 : rz 
 Cy | 
 a 
 2 IS jfewso, 42 | 
 % | {oaee? 7 less 
 | 
 | ) | 
 | / us| 
 | / 3] - | 
 Ap syamiyy J = fi Ase ol 
 ie ie | | < 
 ay x / 2s | | 
 | iy Z| 
 ke ~ Oo 
 4 a : | 
 is ajed \ Z| 
 | I ee ze | 
 I | 
 D uJ 
 - \ 
 a | eee 
 © | J = | 
 aH 4 | 
 | yy | 
 | | | 
 | O , 
 If ULOIOp ) | 2 | 
 fF E if 
 | v vat 7S | WwW 
 2 | a 
 | | fon | 
 ie x 
 \ | 
 1p uozrkerg | he ee 
 45 ? Wed LJ 
 | 
 | hese | 
 | \ | \ | 
 | \ | z ee 
 | 
 SIAISY 
 OP ey apae rFNOOM __ |e ee 
 ly. 
 od | if Pan 
 1 f | 
 ND 7 aFuePyIxXA M | | i a | | 
 | fit } | 
 2 | KF ¢£ | 
 ° eee | 
 | 
 | Lo Hn pl ftesen samen yaya = 
 is | ; 
 n ae - 
 IG, UIges } 
 = 99 ulejuno7z i 5 
 b 0) 
 y jp uo ,Fulysey | =| ra 
 = | |) x TR a ; 
 wo \ int | — ‘IP <ersurijsay s 
 z \ \\ | \ es 
 YP sagsuiugsay ) = } fol \ a 
 : I! H | z 
 ap yadey) / We | | = 
 = | IP Bury <I 
 Is peoig | = PCL “igh: 
 = ANN >) fs . ) = 
 J \ | Bs ‘op Ley | 31.0 
 NN | | 5 
 os Cad FUL \ rat | ) 4 * 
 = ws auld | (av ; iS YPed a} 
 yo diyspuatty & Dw prog, 3 
 : POG IE LIS PLOwgua 3 
 nee BES PAA D ) B If e2uPIIOg } ow 
 & | | W 
 41d | bs) > 
 A ~ | Yen 
 = A \\ > ; | " 
 a \ Le ee ee ee Ne 
 / > 
 aUBT SUueul [fe LT is O = 
 Ip wyrz ( —— in 
 \ 
 v 2S, YFROS | | e 
 x 
 > \ 
 | i) IS JUIOg 
 ies) 
 | 
 / 
 IS 4aysoyour py : 
 3} Wd 
 a = 
 x 9g AeyseueT | Si Wa 
 gg Are19 A = 
 : =} 
 3 A 8 
 =x zr 
 4 2 
 =} 
 US “osiepua fH 5 PS 
 } 
 \ 
 = es 7p) 
 4S PUOJSHIC[T —— oc 
 ~ ie) I) 
 . < 3 ae 
 S ES Li 
 eal ce 
 as 21/qng 
 = we 
 US [J2Uuu07,0 = re) = 0 
 ‘ ap Seg 6 cr = ise 
 td © « c 
 < IS euangiags TY un = 9 . a 
 wena ye 
 29 UeMS oO w 
 g) hg SS J Ll TEES en 
 AY PAG sejher = (a 0 < x 
 = s nynjy L 1 6 
 a as penanyy Ihe ea 6 ie = & 
 IS PLYXO > LJ =) 
 a [-- oO 
 , Os 
 ae sno uhas pom 
 D> . _— 73 
 “Ap savoqany Zz, <L 
 fame a 
 
 FJAOD FSITHOD 
 
 “LSIOH HiT 
 NOILVLS ONIdWng 
 
Plate 3. 
 
 eae BTBIS [RIDA A 
 
 ~) 
 
 +390. 
 
 Av seyFnog 
 
 O11 828 
 
 IO 
 
 “9 
 
 AS PLIM 
 
 ‘AS OLZBOA 
 
 28 
 
ees 6 
 
 —— saa Ww : 
 oes ar are aleog eon4aA 
 % 
 sg AP seffnog = ee es Se 
 > va 
 3 2 
 8 
 12) 
 2S PLIM 4 
 aaa 
 “yp erzBeA, 
 \ > 
 \ xy 
 > ; 
 i z 
 5 
 2 
 ees 
 o 
 \ 2 
 = \ 
 Qo z 
 g see 7 
 2 a N 
 u | | 
 iss) x re 
 nt 
 sxcogreg ¢ dado s \ + , 
 2a] MIE) Lea yy 9 ap 4epemapuey, \ fon ex 
 YIAIY 157M bebo | 
 Pa 
 1% | \s 
 | ) 
 errata? | 
 x aja wulay A - ; 
 | x 1 + 
 7 | *) 
 oa tig 
 ae) 7 0) 
 3 8 weg =| 
 ov 8 u 
 zg & a \Pes 
 22 ” 
 o 9 | 
 i z) 
 C) 2 3] x 
 As ica) JTC SUTAMP | 
 zu ao 
 S + ue] ono¢g } ls 
 7 etd iN 0 vsoerwo77 | N 
 7) 
 ° h | 
 6” fy be ie 
 i | 
 °3 | a | ul 
 2 9 | Vi | > | 
 =i) | | 
 og be x x i@— | 
 ere | \ | 
 D 
 Aw SN hae | 
 S \ } } 
 <j \ | | 
 fal 4 | 
 5 i a 
 ee ieee youP. = 
 F 2 tp) 
 77) = > | | 
 = z YIAIH LSIM poy j Ll 
 z 3 ¥ < 
 | J | 
 i= | | 
 = | } 
 a uJ D | | 
 iS 
 i! rs - | | 
 G x 5 {3 | 
 0 a } | 
 Fes = g | 
 = ~ | | | 
 tt} / | | 
 %¥ AINDIYXL / | 
 / \f 
 ( | | 
 225 MePl2UM Y | 
 n \ 
 - S \ lo 
 i”) nZ \ 1 
 $ \ | | 
 & 4 \ | 
 Ps L{ ‘ we \ | 
 ~ | 
 Soe | 
 YIAls ¢ | 
 go e E | > 
 rs 5 | | 
 Si i Wf 4e7SGaM | 
 yl gb w yi | 
 na — que puourary { | 
 ‘y : \ 
 HINTHL ul is | 
 eG si i | 
 \ Se \ Io 
 AS [[epuex a ©? be yrepuexy--l Is 
 5 & RS 
 h co zal ~ 
 a 
 0 6/ | 
 ce ( 
 5 SS z > a 
 ie i ~ sl EA | 
 YIM MINSSKASSOW Th = \ | 
 = wren. z |r 
 ] | Wi 
 lito a 
 YS" [TLE a Ql 
 at a TW 
 ) ls | 
 ae seapddlo aue7z_) c Pe : 
 5 igen oo 4 Bl Ceapenem nade ve, EEN Gees | 
 A ~ { 
 \" 
 \ © } | 
 N fore } | 
 | 
 } 
 =) 
 n / 
 { 
 IT og J4niziog7g N Ss 
 > Ap Gutasr \ 
 -- | 
 2 ) < | = 
 # Us <Fupeapy © U | | Y 
 oO =) YLegT evysHo.erg_ 
 iS) y | 
 WS YIIAS | 
 be | 
 | 
 GS Soule | Y v | 
 ( < 3 s 
 \ Re as ee 
 “IF aFajog = ka ra 
 ad i 
 Y) iS | 
 na ‘29 eray < | 
 x 
 IS PIOLM EL) 6) | 
 | |= 
 “IS PEM = | S 
 \ | 
 LS 2UueTW | 
 | | 
 IG tamog | 
 ) | 
 | : = 
 y 2 \ 
 ;| O 
 3 | & 
 ee A = 
 A US seule | 7 | | < 
 on 3 ae | 
 9 | Of uLeutlazPey | ag 
 2 "IE QISUBLL \ = 
 Qf GPU si 3| 
 A 2 
 QI 
 ic | Fie 
 S * fli a= 
 5 IS 2uaA3D 5 i] i 
 2 | = 
 w WS FULLY T | ay 
 Z| 
 | 5 
 he 
 | o | 1 
 ‘IS OYLT | 4c r 
 | ae rl uJ 
 rs 
 <j) hod 
 IST LO7VOMYIOT ds > ~ 
 | ipa 3 
 | s =})| = 
 19 eBipuys | S z 
 2 fe) Py 
 = [a 
 vo | 
 o 
 yn 
 ey 
 : SE 
 OP Ste TIM 
 IS? JUOMP LT Zz 
 2 ie) 
 . Ep pISUeay 
 ~ 
 e n RYN 
 DP uwoz,uaLy | 
 —— a 5 \ ly 
 A Bs wepueyory | i 
 5 | | LJ 
 YQ © | 
 ne 1} 
 oc | oP) 
 > IS LOROMYIOTL iY | HS 
 x “BIpUuy pur owe» 
 os ira 
 LL IS SaAs 
 = ome 38 
 ceca x 
 Si be eae . 
 uw oO ~ 
 py eee a 
 oO Oa ce 
 eal o we 
 a ial et a 8 
 amy ie wo > 2 s 
 2) er zs 
 a 
 io i -s is 5 if 
 cb . 
 rs) If yoorg 
 Ofea 
 hi WS OSTOAPLL 
 ae WS pIeuag 
 ae Za . 
 = — aS ureyy $ 
 i, 9S 42eM 3 
 oo eee 
 
| 
 
 WY 
 WS 
 
 WS 
 
 i 
 
 WM. ;};}0s 
 
 \ ING CHAMBER. 
 
 AWS 
 
 T 
 \ 
 
 Ss 
 7 
 
 bet 
 
 om 
 
 a EE 
 ay as YI Lye G _ 
 ba, 
 
 MR nhs 
 
 INTERCEPTING SEWER 
 
 ING METHOD OF CONNECTING THE 
 H THE INTERCEPTING SEWER 
 
 Plate 4. 
 
Plate 4 
 
 IMPROVED SEWERAGE 
 
 PUeaine (As ves 
 
 WEAUNOINTERCEPTING SEWERS &c. 
 City Engineer's Office 
 
 PROVIDENCE R.I. 
 
 S 8 
 May 1886. S < 
 7 x S 
 & & . 
 N ~ 
 S X 
 ea J 
 SN SS iS 
 iS Ss enue | |S 
 a & | 
 = S SL oa ld 4 
 S : | | 
 iN 1 |] 
 R || TIDE 
 : By 
 ee ee | | ee 
 recs ae — is | 3+ 
 i] = 
 Ils at) 
 Ro F 
 Pry A 
 114 
 a Gy my INTERCEPTING SEWER 
 De ek: = a eee si ee MEAN HIGH WATER LINE . re : a = ens. S — = 2 in 
 4 
 Le ene t______ het = = = 4 - t ~ ; <1 = el t) 
 a puccne sed a es oy ae #2 y ae 2 am PLANS AND SECTIONS SHOWING METHOD OF CONNECTING THE 
 33 : 
 LINE FROM OLNEYVILLE To MANTON bs COMMON SEWERS WITH THE INTERCEPTING SEWER. 
 
‘s1878A oye OQ TROT} 1aA, 
 
 ‘qoay 
 
Ay. 
 
 Allens 
 
 7860 Ft. From 
 PUMPING STATION, 
 
 8000. 
 
 IMPROVED SEWERAGE 
 
 Pa ReOm rns Sees OFr 
 
 MAIN INTERCEPTING SEWERS 
 
 City Engineer's Office 
 
 PROVIDENCE R.I. 
 April 1886. 
 
 Providence River 
 
 Filo lesen 
 
 0//83/ | 
 
 os 
 
 4S 
 <a 
 
 XN ; 
 
 v S 
 * oh 
 NY ™| 
 & J) 
 $ 41] 
 
 S +|4 
 = 
 
 2 a} 
 
 Pere fal ios 
 
 Sra oO VW o|-N G 
 
 THIS LINE 40 FT. BELOW M.H.wW. 
 
 \ \ : ; ’ ‘ : 7 . 7 : - 7 
 a 
 LE 
 
 3s 
 | 
 pee. 
 
 1 
 
 L 
 
 t 
 = 1 = 
 ae CJT eS a © a 
 
 8500 
 
 Series 
 
 PFR'OnPlO7s 1D 
 
 n 
 9000 
 
 GC ROS SEN G THE 
 
 — 
 9500 
 
 Mitteas HeolD OF Reta 
 
Plate 6. 
 
 ONEZH 
 
 -_— 
 
 Water 
 
 uth 
 
 PL LMOPJOMYIOL 
 
 AV” PUL 
 
 IL FULITZLIP 7 
 4j2 fia 
 
 FS PISUPAL 
 
 TS SIuler 
 
 }SHSQON ojeag peo1yzay, 
 
 /4 
 
 se nwnwaneemaehaeewnwee eee ee es 
 /3 
 
 Te 
 
Fietos PoiInT. 
 
 ee ——t 
 
 RESERVOIR. 
 
 MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. 
 
 2 4 
 fo) 1@) 
 FE ie 
 < fe " Allens Av. x Eddy St. x 
 a i y ) 5 3 — 
 o 1 SS ~ : 
 s iv) % =! 8 ‘ ae c XQ 
 z z Ny iS ss ¥ S S ages ‘ “ D 
 = 8 6 : WS Ll g oC s) x 1) y ~ Ni : 
 = a 8 RI 5 y ‘! ~ 3 . S a 5 , 2 8 & 
 2 Ss ~ 5 Vv t NX = ae po ~ Fi Le) 
 5 = hy he ik Ww y yy Se a ~ AO a) v S$ N Lt 
 = 2 ee hy, mee os ORS a 3 p A S S Ree oe 
 a >) / > sr 0 N ies x S S S vn % ty *~ > & we 
 J Sh § BY Wes S SS VON g S es a 
 = si G28 % Q n 0 a = R ’ =) 
 ~ ty) re Be - ist} a 
 Rie. Seon 8 oe ae 
 fae 
 s ©) aaa 
 
 Dyer St 
 XK 
 = w 
 =) 
 v w 
 0 y > 
 ~ N 4 
 s ¢ 
 iy 9) 
 y n 
 8 Oo A 
 Q 
 
 : 
 esesce see eeeeeewese ese eee eee ee ewe ee eee 
 
 Meaeoeee eres == 
 
 eal A 
 
 1 og re 
 1K 
 
 PROFILE SHOWING SEWER AND STORAGE 
 FOR CRUDE DISPOSAL. 
 
 RESERVOIR 
 
 THIS LINE 30 FT BELOW M.H.W 
 — 
 
 ___MEAN HIGH WATER LINE —S =} I 
 
 nae 
 aes 
 
 South 
 ~ 
 ae) ~ 
 
 2s 
 % 2 
 v ' 
 Sie 
 es Y 
 WY xX 
 a S 
 as ist 
 
 Water 
 
 JST, 
 
 SAaImMes 
 
 Transit St 
 
 & 
 yy 
 > z 
 Re 
 tu 
 vs 
 > 
 Woy 
 ~ Q ‘ Q 
 x ae) 8 a 
 a AS, 
 : Veiga aS 
 4 “ ~ BA 
 ~ Re eS 
 %) ~ er 
 ne PY NIRS 
 Pears \—~ 
 
 see ene em eneeseee eee ee Ss 
 
 Site 
 
 ST 
 
 Cert 
 
 F'al hing St 
 
 a: 
 
 re 
 7) o /000 tt. o 4 Ej 6 ' 7 
 
 1 
 / KILOMETER 2K 
 
 Sop 
 Sof 
 4) 
 
 PROFILE SHOWING GuRGAo Ee NEG ESS 78 [2% BOI TAKING Wig 
 Sn DIE ACROSS U tal = ROU EIR Aaa CRAWFORD 
 
 SEWAGE 
 Sila 
 
 Oy 
 
 Win 
 
 St 
 
 Pilce 
 
 St 
 
 Tochiwoattor 
 
 0 
 
 7,0 
 Za 
 
 60 
 
 50 
 
 Sv 
 
 SIZATS? 6 
 40 
 
 oO 
 Vd 
 
 uU 
 
 Vertical § 
 
 | 
 
UIP] J YAIMAP LY PUA Wado Nr 
 
 “ahs 
 KY 
 8) 
 o 
 co) 
 aw 
 py 
 & 
 = 
 
Plate 7 
 = E se —__— ~ = - ones2 | 
 
 SHOWING LINE OF FORCE MAIN FROM ne 
 Sy 
 PUMPING STATION neakR FIELDS POINT tro TERRITORY in WARWICK § 
 xs 
 as 
 Rita) iS) IN eer@IN NIE Cape aNi Wel tr N 
 5 
 SEWAGE IRRIGATION ~ 
 re 2 y § 
 ° OTe! 5 z City Eng s Of 8 S 
 FE Field Farm x Division Av. x Eddy hes 6 = Broad Site > % ify Ensgineer’s Office ‘ 2 5 § 
 4 £ PROVIDENCE R.I. & « t 5 
 z S “ aN Ng Q a Private Property. 
 ” 2 5 April 1886 8 95 & s x | 
 ° att SS % = | ~ 
 v Sx = ; e 8 
 z ae S ce & ru S x N ee meat ese 
 : < Warwick Av Rie 3 iy Warwick \\ Q S < a & ON 
 i Ay. § : 2 3 <- o 
 ee S§ = tq x RS S wn 
 = ‘ S : 8 g tee 
 ae See = = * a -_ ———— a 
 & : & La a a = \ 
 fs 
 i fag Ee R an ——= = = \ 
 eee ee i = 
 s oe SN - ad 
 R y WE Ss NI ee 
 = / SS A 
 ‘A MEAN HIGH WATER LINE. 7 1 79 i) 23 a ae 2: 26 27 +300 
 7 <= Sars gy # " 
 Vertical Scale PeSt;., yest Ot ag Oe ; ae ; = en : Ee ae ee eS eee =e eee 
 
Plate & 
 
 OIE 33 
 
 ‘29 MOOLT 
 
 "99° LaatIFIeGAT 
 
 ‘AP allleid 
 
 | 
 
Plate & 
 
 { 
 | 
 
 OME 33 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 
 | 
 | 
 
 Qe FOOLS 
 
 "25" Ueda F#Ia@Agq 
 
 Road 
 
 ea 
 | | 
 
 | 
 
 PEO [flff— azesoAa { 
 ro 
 ic 
 ) 
 
 ‘ 
 \ 
 ‘ 
 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 ‘ 
 i} 
 i} 
 ' 
 ' 
 i} 
 \ 
 ' 
 i} 
 
 aspIlg May 
 
 ri 
 
 RO 
 
 2000.Tt. 
 
 +850 
 
 26 
 
 RS. 
 
 a4 
 
 rape 
 
 T ‘sa1070j/T 
 200 
 
 Sie IG TROTLAVA - 
 
 }