628.3 
 
 \Md8zYw] 
 
 V;^ 
 
 4/ ^5 
 
 Aflas^acht^seft’i T)r^tn0pe: 
 Corn mission 
 
THE REPORT 
 
 OF THE 
 
 By Geo. E. 'Waring, Jr., M. Inst., C. E. 
 
 (Reprinted from the American Architect, March 20 and 27, 1886.) 
 
 1 
 
 NEWPORT, R. I. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2017 with funding from 
 
 University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Alternates 
 
 https://archive.org/details/reportofmassachuOOwari 
 
« 
 
 fA3 8a,'uv 
 
 THE REPORT OF THE MASSACHUSETTS DRAINAGE 
 COMMISSION. 
 
 J i 
 
 In 1884, in pursuance of a resolve of the Legislature, the Gov- 
 3 rnor of Massachusetts appointed Messrs. Adams, Stebbins, Con- 
 verse, Hayden and Tuekerinan a commission to investigate condi- 
 ;ions affeeting the purity of certain rivers of the State and to 
 suggest remedial measures. The commission employed Mr. Eliot 
 J. Clarke as its chief engineer, and Alessrs. Joseph P. Davis and 
 Rudolph Hering as consulting engineers. It has recently issued an 
 )fiicial report of two hundred and forty-thr-ee pages, giving the result 
 pf its labors. 
 
 The assumption is made at the outset that the rivers in question 
 ire seriously polluted by sewage and by manufacturing waste, the 
 legree of pollution in the ease of different rivers being duly consid- 
 ered. It is also assumed that the best way to get rid of sewage, when 
 t can safely be adopted, is to discharge it into a large body of fresh 
 water. It is assumed that this is not practicable in the case of the 
 avers in question. 
 
 One of the conclusions reached was that, owing to the impossi- 
 3 ility of discharging the sewage directly into streams without first 
 ourifying it, it is necessary to exclude storm-water from it entirely. 
 The commissioners say : — 
 
 “ We do not provide for surface drainage. Situated as we were, 
 t was found to involve a scale of cost which seemed to us entirely 
 nadmissible. It may answer very well when sewage flows freely 
 iway into large bodies of water, but if it requires pumping, treating 
 )r handling in any form, the accession of rainfall swells the discharge 
 it times to utterly unmanageable proportions and in any aspect is 
 /ery costly and cumbrous. We think that the figures which ive 
 lave to present will be sufficiently imposing without one dollar of 
 leedless expenditure. In our view the treatment of street scour as 
 sewage is a luxury rather than a necessity of municipal life, and it 
 
 
4 
 
 I'he Report of the Mossachnsett.'i l)r(iin(t(ie Commission. 
 
 seems to iis that most of our towns ami cities fiml tliat their neces- 
 sities will probably absorb all the funds which they are (juite ready 
 to spare.” 
 
 The prevention of the pollution of streams by the waste of manu- 
 facturing establishments is properly regarded as only incidental to 
 the chief ])urpose of this commission, which is to prevent access of 
 foul or of partially purified sewage to streams from which water is 
 taken for domestic use. This element of the problem is divided into 
 three })arts : 1. llelating to towns of which the sewage may be 
 
 delivered through a common sewer to one common area for purifica- 
 tion. 2. Relating to towns of which the sewage may he delivered 
 by a common carrier into the ])resent main outfall system of the 
 City of Boston. 3. Relating to towns of which the sewage must be 
 treated independently, each by itself, or in small groups. 
 
 The largest example of the first method is the system jiroposed 
 for the Mystic River valley. This is to take the sewage of the 
 whole or a portion of Stoneham, Woburn, Winchester, Medford, 
 Belmont, Arlington, Cambridge, Somerville, Melrose, Malden, Ever- 
 ett, Chelsea and Revere, by a sewer which at its lower end is five 
 feet in diameter, with an inclination of 1 to 2,-500. This sewer is 
 to deliver at a pumping-station near Pines River in Saugus, where 
 there is a tract of more than 1,000 acres, which may be made avail- 
 able for its treatment. The sewage is to be pumped on to this land 
 and filtered through it, the effluent being discharged a little below the 
 level of half-tide, reaching the sea through Pines River. 
 
 The cost of this scheme is estimated at $1,520,000, the interest on 
 the cost of construction at three per cent being $45, GOO and the 
 annual charge for maintenance being $20,000. This combined yearly 
 charge is apportioned between the different towns in various amounts , 
 ranging from $449.85, in the case of Somerville, to $16,522.44, in j 
 the case of Chelsea. 
 
 The largest exainjile of the second method is that of the lower | 
 
 Charles River valley for the disposal of the sewage of Waltham, > 
 
 Newton, Watertown, Brighton, Charlestown, Somerville, Cambridge, 
 Brookline, and part of Boston proper. The main sewer of this sys- 
 tem has at its lower end a diameter of six feet six inches and an 
 inclination of 1 to 2,800. It delivers into the Boston main sewer i 
 
5 
 
 The Report of the JSIassachusett:^ iJruinage Commission. 
 
 at Huntington and Camden streets. Its cost is estimated at $1,561,- 
 000, with a yearly charge for maintenance of $12,000 and for inter- 
 est of $46,830. To this is to be added an annual payment of the 
 City of Boston for outfall and pumping of $29,650. These costi — 
 in all $88,480 — are apportioned at rates varying from $1,265.06 for 
 a part of Boston proper, to $26,288.21 in the case of Cambridge. 
 
 A characteristic example of the third method is to be found in the 
 case^of Westborough, where it is recommended to construct a main 
 sewer of fifteen-inch pipe with an inclination of 1 to 1,500 cross- 
 ing a divide in Park Street by an excavation about twenty-one feet 
 deep and running westerly to a gravelly knoll of about fifteen acres 
 extent, the highest point of which is about seventeen feet above the 
 general level of the adjoining meadow. It is proposed to grade this 
 down by the removal of 33,000 cubic yards of gravel, establishing a 
 level area of ten acres about six feet above the elevation of spring 
 freshets. This land is to be divided into four separate beds to which 
 sewage can be delivered alternately. The cost of the scheme is $45,- 
 210. The charge for interest at three per cent would be $1,356.30. 
 No estimate for the cost of maintenance is given. It is proposed that 
 the City of Boston shall contribute $15,000 toward the execution of 
 the work. 
 
 The total cost of all the improvements proposed is $3,771,381, on 
 which the yearly interest at three per cent would be $113,141.43. 
 
 Concerning those districts which cannot be drained to the Boston 
 main outfall it is assumed that the only admissible process for purifi 
 cation is what is known as intermittent filteration. 
 
 Chemical treatment is discarded because of its inefficiency and 
 excessive cost. Broad irrigation or “ sewage farming ” is discarded 
 because of the large area required and because of the objection to 
 the undertaking of farming operations by a municipalit 3 \ The com- 
 mission expresses its objection to chemical treatment as follows : 
 
 “It is also the general opinion that chemical processes in their best 
 form will have some effect in removing noxious matter in solution, but 
 all agree that a considerable amount must be left in the effluent. Tliis, 
 liowever, may be safely discharged into a running stream, if its pro- 
 portion to the supply of pure water does not exceed five per cent. But 
 w’e have still to deal with the precipitate — about fifty grains, we will 
 
C L he lleport of the .]f(iss(ichHselfs DronKKfe ( 'oinmlssion. 
 
 say, to tlie j?allon. It is very offensive, and not valuable. Ily subject- 
 ing the sludge to methods of pressure, however, most of the water has 
 been expressed without offense, and its weight reduced to about one 
 ton to one hundred and sixty-five thousand gallons of sewage. It is 
 possible that some market-value might attach to this residuum in some 
 localities, but we dare not count upon anything better than gratuitous 
 removal. Finally, the cost of the operation in England is estimated to be 
 just about one shilling per head, or say, twenty-five cents for each 
 person yearly. This does not include interest on the capital invested 
 in the works, land, and so on. By itself, therefore, it does not appear 
 to be financially attractive.” 
 
 [The cost in England would have to be doubled in calculations for 
 this country.] 
 
 Of irrigation it is said that when it is especially favored by cir- 
 cumstances it is the best method, but tliat it is seldom that these cir- 
 cumstances can be controlled to advantage. The process is thus 
 described : 
 
 “By this process, the sewage being conducted ro land prepared for 
 the purpose, is suffered to flow over it and be taken up in part by the 
 crops raised upon it. In short, it is an attempt to extract the element 
 ot value from the sewage by using it as a fertilizer in farming. The 
 noxious and offensive elements are thus either beneficially appro- 
 priated by crops, or are detained in the soil by mechanical filtration, 
 or by long and repeated exposure to the air are decomposed, oxidized, 
 and changed into harmless matters, so that the water which runs off is 
 comparatively pure. More than one hundred towns in England employ 
 this system, and it proves eminently satisfactory where conditions 
 favor its adoption. Its great drawback is the vast area of land 
 required for its successful operation on a large scale. It is stated, for 
 example, in our engineer’s report, that Boston would require a farm 
 about as large as the entire township of Brookline, if it wished to 
 realize the whole farming value of its sewage. The best English 
 authorities estimate that one acre of land must be set aside for each 
 one hundred i)ersons. When it is remembered that this land must 
 all be tolerably level and fairly dry, some appreciation is reached of 
 the obstacle which this incident presents to the general adoption of 
 this system. There are subsidiary difliculties which will naturally 
 occur to all. It suggests alarming possibilities of farming on a large 
 scale, by municipal corj)orations. This prospect may well damp the 
 
. The Report of the Massachin^etts Drainage Conunission. 7 
 
 I ■enthusiasm of many wlio would eagerly welcome such a solution of the 
 i sewage problem, if sufficient private farming enterprise were available 
 ^ upon tracts of land convenient and adapted to the purpose. . . . Dry 
 , or wet, night and day, summer and winter, the sajne quantity must be 
 I taken, or if there be any variation, it is likely to be most when the 
 I erop needs it least. And it is this obligation which we fancy would 
 '■ dismay our farmers. But in the absence of such a private demand, it 
 is difficult to see how the work can be carried out without the direct 
 intervention of the municipality. . . . 
 
 “In fine, we believe this system to be admirable, if only a number 
 of somewhat intractable conditions, some of which we have indicated, 
 can be controlled. Wliere all things can be made to work together in 
 harmony, it offers a reasonable probability of at least reducing the 
 expense of getting rid of sewage to a minimum. Where an arrange- 
 ment can be made to operate it in combination with filtration, so that 
 private agriculturists may take the sewage in such quantities, and at 
 such times, as they may find best for their crops, and, when not desired, 
 can turn it upon filter-beds, we think there would be a fair prospect of 
 attaining'the largest measure of utilization with the least possible com- 
 plication and expense.” 
 
 The method finally selected for recommendation is what is called 
 in England “ Intermittent Downward Filteration ” The advantages 
 of this system are so well stated in the report that it would be impos- 
 sible to improve on the instructive text : 
 
 “Intermittent filtration, pure and simple, is the converse of irrigation. 
 The latter is the minimum quantitj' of sewage api)lied to the maximum 
 area of land, and permits utilization, as well as purification, to the 
 greatest degree. The former is the application of the maximum quan. 
 tity of sewage upon the minimum area of land. It permits of only 
 partial utilization, but, in our o])inion, of more jicrfect purification. i 
 It frankly abandons all dreams of profit; and in so doing it gets rid of 
 the two greatest drawbacks to the system of irrigation. Having no 
 crop to consider, much less land will suffice, as it is found that the 
 ground will filter ten times as much sewage as any croj) upon it can 
 profiiably absorb. Having no farming ventures at stake, we are relieved 
 of all tlie machinery of trade and difficulties of management. Purifi- 
 cation, not profit, is the paramount idea. Kot that it is impossible, in 
 
 1 This opinion is not well founded. 
 
8 
 
 The lleport of the Alossochiisetts J)r(iirt(ige (Joniiiii.ssloH. 
 
 certain cases, to combine some i)rofitabIe use witli this primary inten- 
 tion, but if so, it is a purely secondary consideration. Tliis system is 
 in effect, notbing but turning certain tracts of suitable land, by skilful 
 l)reparation, into monstrous filters. ''J'bere is, properly, no attempt to 
 save any matters held in suspension or solution in tbe sewage. The 
 object is to get clear of them utterly, whether they be good or bad, 
 precious or worthless, and restore tbe water to its first estate, pure and 
 undefiled, as it bubbled from tbe spring. And this wonderful trans- 
 formation is constantly asserted to be brought about by a faithful 
 application of the filtration process. Its advocates maintain that sew- 
 age, passed through ten feet of prepared earth, is good enough for any 
 I)urpose, and they claim it to be nature’s process, and intimate that, 
 after all, it is a mere question of a little more or less remoteness, and 
 every drop of water on earth to-day was sewage not long ago. How- 
 ever that may be, it is sufficient for the present jjurpose to say that, if 
 properly managed, it does afford a practicable, economical and efficient 
 means of cleansing sewage. The objections to it are live-fold. It is 
 charged to be wasteful, in that it feeds no crop. There is a dread, lest 
 so much sewage on so little land should cause offense, especially in 
 midsummer. Doubters are confident that the land must eventually 
 clog. And finally, it is thought that the cost of the preparation of the 
 land will be excessive, or that the carelessness to be bargained for 
 with ordinary management on a large scale, would render its success 
 utterly problematical. The final arbiter of all such questionings is 
 experience, and that infallible test has decided that these fears are, 
 for the most part, groundless. . . . 
 
 “ We have, then, no hesitation in recommending the adoption of this 
 system, where, for any reason, broad irrigation is impracticable or 
 undesirable and the ocean unattainable, and we think it likely to prove 
 always a valuable auxiliary, in combination with irrigation, where the 
 surroundings admit of its introduction.” 
 
 I'lie Commission says, at another point: — 
 
 “ It almost seems as if earth, at a touch, took every baleful element 
 out of sewage. We wish to enq)hasize this immunity from all essential 
 I)ollution to air or water in the neighborhood of such lands, because it 
 is probable that such an ai)prehension may be aroused at tbe outset, 
 and it is possible that such baseless fears may be instrumental in pre- 
 judicing a feature of the scheme which seems to us to offer a singu- 
 larly fortunate escai)e from a very perplexing dilemma.” 
 
The Report of the Massachusetts JJrainage Cominissiou. D 
 
 However, when it comes to its recommendations it does not trust 
 the touch of earth to destroy the baleful element. It says, in con- 
 nection with Waltham, that filtration might be objected to on the 
 score of danger from the returning effluent to the water suj)})lies of 
 Waltham and Watertown, Again, it says : “ Any sewage field which 
 might be fixed upon should not even filter in the direction of streams 
 which supply water for drinking.” In the case of Marlborough, it 
 is proj)Osed to spend about $22,000 for the sake of reaching remote 
 ground, more than would be recpnred ‘‘ to reach another equally 
 acceptable were it not for the fact that the effluent from the nearer 
 of the two might affect the Boston water-supply.” It recommends 
 that “ In Westborough as in Marlborough some additional expense 
 should be faced rather than to run the risk of mixing the results of 
 a possibly imperfect filtration with the drinking-water of any com- 
 munity.” 
 
 This consideration is never lost sight of by the commission nor by 
 its engineers, and upon it are based most of the recommendations 
 made with reference to all those [)arts of the district which cannot 
 drain to the Boston outfall. 
 
 The general theory on which the recommendations are based may 
 fairly be formulated thus : 
 
 1. Unless where access to tide-water can be given in an unobjec- 
 tionable manner, the sewage must be purified before it enters any 
 stream. 
 
 2. Purification by chemical means would not be complete and would 
 cost too much. 
 
 3. Broad irrigation when properly controlled secures a perfect 
 effluent and an agricultural advantage, but it would take too much 
 land and would involve the undertaking of farming operations by 
 municipalities. If not always properly regulated it might result in 
 the discharge of crude sewage over the surface into the stream. 
 
 4. Intermittent filtration is not subject to these disadvantages; it 
 may be supplemented by irrigation to any desired extent, and its result 
 is perfectly satisfactory. 
 
 5. However, to make assurance doubly sure, to avoid an infraction 
 of the statute requiring sewage to be kept out of streams used as 
 
10 
 
 7V/e Jleport of the Afdssacli useffs l)r(iioa(je ( dtiinnlssion. 
 
 sources of domestic sn})))ly, and to see that no unrecognized and 
 unsuspected “virulent j)oison from a j)reviou.s sewage pollution” 
 shall enter the water-supply rivers, even intermittent filtration areas 
 must, wherever possible, be moved over beyond the edges of the 
 Avater-shed and made to drain into some stream not now under the 
 ban of the statute. 
 
 6. As the ])rotected water-shed is so larire, as the towns are so 
 thiek and growing so fast, it is not Avise to attempt the j)urifieation of 
 their eflluent near at hand. So far as ]) 0 ssible their sewage, should 
 tloAv into truidc lines and be carried to remote })oints,as to tlie Saugus 
 Plain. 
 
 7. As the sewage Avill have to he carried tlirough a costly main 
 scAvcr, ])umped at its ])oint of destination and filtered through earth, 
 everything except sewage must be ke])t out of it. The luxury of 
 treating other Avaters would be too expensive. 
 
 This formula has been adhered to as closely, as carefully, and as 
 consistently as the nature of things Avould alloAv. All of its details 
 have been Avorked out with indefatigable pains and Avith great skill 
 and at much cost. If Ave accept the formula as correct, sufhcient, 
 Avell founded and controlling, no (jucsticn can he raised from any side 
 as to the satisfactory and conclusive chaiacter of the Avork done. 
 
 There is })crha])s a point of view from which some details of the 
 scheme, details enormously affecting its completeness and its effi- 
 ciency, take a someAvhat different asjiect. 
 
 First of all, it is not ])leasant to give up our reliance on the good 
 old motto “ Divide el Imperaf Avhich has so long been the Avatchword 
 of the sanitarian. It has generally been supposed that the more 
 closely the details of cleansing Avork come under the control and are 
 made to im})Ose their burden upon those producing the Avaste, the 
 more economical and the more complete might he the result. Under 
 the scheme ])roposed, it Avould be at least a matter of indifference to 
 the [)eo})le of AVinchester, for example, AA’hether they sent much or 
 little scAvage for transportation through the main seAver, and to be 
 })umj)ed for [)uriliea( ion in Saugus; so it Avould be a matter of indif- 
 fei'cnce to the ])eo])leof AAhdtham and AAhitertoAvn Avhether they con- 
 tributed much or tittle of the Hoav to be delivered through the Boston 
 
The Beporl of the MassachuKetts Droinage ('ommisslon. 11 
 
 main and pumped at the outfall station. This consideration might 
 seriously affect the magnitude of the problem. Again, there is noth- 
 ing more rare than a tight sewer, and in many of the towns to be 
 drained the sewers pass through saturated subsoil. That is, they 
 would act as underdrains, and the amount of subsoil water contrib- 
 uted, greater in some places than in others, would, ])robably, at cer- 
 tain seasons — and these the worst seasons for purification — amount 
 to a very important factor. Then too, it is very well to say that 
 these outlets are provided only for a separate system of sewerage 
 throughout the whole district to be relieved ; but who is to regulate 
 this and how exactly will it be regulated? It would be easy, no 
 doubt, to prevent the connection of surface openings in the streets. 
 It would not be easy — at all events for those who control the gen- 
 eral system — to pcdice the many towns connected so fre(juently and 
 so thoroughly as would be necessary to prevent the clandestine dis- 
 charge of roof and yard water through house-drains, and an enor- 
 mous volume from this source would come to flood the purification- 
 field at the time when it would — from rain falling directly upon it 
 — be least able to receive sewage. 
 
 These considerations suggest a difficulty of great magnitude. It 
 is found in England that where the “ separate ” system is used, there 
 is a very great increase of flow during rain-storms, and from under- 
 ground drainage after rains. Bailey Denton says, with reference to 
 Great INIalvern : “ Idie sewage proper, measured by the water-sipiply, 
 amounts to 150,000 gallons a day, but in looking to the dilution due 
 to subsoil water wdiicli raises it to 350,000 gallons a day, etc.” In 
 Abingdon, the sewage discharged in dry weather amounts to 200,- 
 000 gallons “increased to double that quantity in wet weather, the 
 excess being due to the fact that the private sewers communicating 
 with the public sewers in the town receive the rain run off the back 
 roofs and impervious surfaces connected with the house.” 
 
 Therefore, in regulating the scale on which these works are to be 
 constructed, attention must be given not alone to [)reseut and future 
 population, but to the increase of subsoil water leaking into the 
 sewers and of roof and yard water clandestinely introduced into 
 them — a very uncertain element of the calculation. However great 
 
12 
 
 The Jieport of the Mossdchusrlls Droiuoge Connn'o^sion. 
 
 it may be, an addition must be made to it to j)rovide for tbe infiltration 
 of soil water en route, es[)eeially after tlie main sewer dips below the 
 permanent water-table of tbe ground. All this foreign water intro- 
 duced into the sewers becomes foul water and must be treated at the 
 same cost with tbe much smaller volume of actual domestic sewage 
 provided for. 
 
 Concerning the relative advant.ages of broad irrigation and inter- 
 mittent filtration, the case is, in the main, well stated. Doubtless 
 the former would be used with the latter as a means of relief or as a 
 means of agricultural advantage, much more generally than the 
 commission has assumed. This would be regidated by ex})erience. 
 
 The recpiirement that, so far as ])ossible, irrigation-areas shall be 
 removed beyond tbe limit of the Boston water-shed, seems fanciful, 
 when we consider the manner in which the streams of that water- 
 supply receive their chief contributions. The amount of water flowing 
 to them over the surface of the ground is insignificant, when com- 
 pared with that which comes to them from what Mr. Clarke aj)tly 
 describes as a “ wet sponge” — the saturated subsoil of the district. 
 
 Rainwater and other surface-water, however impure it may be, is 
 purified before it penetrates far into the earth. AVhether it be the 
 slops thrown over the back-yards of a town, or that which soaks 
 into the surface of the street, it does not descend far before it is essen- 
 tially purified. The same would be true of sewage intermittently 
 delivered on to ground prepared for its purification. 
 
 The same is not true with reference to the foul water entering the 
 soil at lower depths. Every cesspool, every privy-vault, every leak- 
 ing house-drain, every leaking town-sewer, delivers its foul flow into 
 ground that is powerless to purify it except by dilution. The stream 
 flowing through a porous subsoil toward the river by which it is car- 
 ried away, cannot pass under a small cesspool-village wuthout receiving 
 enormously more filth, and filth of an enormously more dangerous char- 
 acter than could [)ossibly be deiuved from any such system of filtra- 
 tion as a modern community would think of tolerating in connec- 
 tion with its sewage-works. If all of the sewage of Natick and 
 outh Framingham were filtered through a field five rods away fromS 
 tlui bank of the river (under the most ordinary regulation), the 
 amount of organic matter and the amount of infection that would 
 
The Report of the J\[(irsachusetts Drahioge ( ■oiniiiission. 13 
 
 thus reach the river would be as nothing coin{)ared with what 
 would come with the unfiltered sewage above referred to, entering 
 the underground stream direcdly at hundreds of points throughout 
 these two towns, as it would still continue to do after the completion 
 of the proposed work. 
 
 It is not always easy to define a water-shed. It is by no means 
 alway s bounded by the top of the ridge of land bordering it. It is 
 not seldom that a town, lying on a slope belonging to one water-shed, 
 really belongs, so far as its subsoil water is concerned, to another 
 water-shed, for the underground currents are controlled by sub- 
 surface-formation, not by topograph}'. A main sewer, built to carry 
 the sewage over a long course, and to discharge near a river not 
 belonging to' the Boston basin, would probably deliver enough crude 
 sewage by the way, through leaking-joints, to contaminate seriously 
 the subterranean watei’-llow of the Boston district. 
 
 The rej)ort is, therefore, open to the criticism that it evinces too 
 little confidence in the purification that may be effected by the pro- 
 cess which it recommends, and has disregarded a source of impurity 
 which is serious at the point of origin, and which may be greatly 
 extended and distributed by the very process recommended to 
 remove it. Sewage cannot safely be carried through a water-bear- 
 ing, porous soil in sewers of ordinary construction, for these cannot 
 always and certainly be known to be tight. 
 
 There can be little doubt that the greatest security — and a much- 
 needed security it is — will be gained by avoiding, so far as pos- 
 sible, all transportation of sewage. It should be got out of the deep 
 ground as soon as possible, and the purifying process should be 
 applied as near as may be to the point of production. 
 
 Concerning the danger to which the water-supply is subjected, the 
 consulting engineers say : — 
 
 “ Tlie sewage must be very thorougldy treated before entering them, 
 to guard against the transmission of disease, liable to be produced by 
 specific poisons or infectious germs. It is not possible to set up an 
 absolute standard for this purpose. Although the water may be clear, 
 and chemical analysis may show it to be of good quality, it can still 
 hold a virulent poison from a previous sewage pollution. Mr. 11. Pum- 
 
14 
 
 The Repoii of the Jfossfirhusetts Drauiaf/e Commission. 
 
 pelly lias sliown, by experiments on tlie filtering eapacity of soils, that 
 otherwise jiiire water readily carries bacterial infection along with it 
 when percolating through sand and other common materials of the 
 ground.” 
 
 It is possible that clear water, which chemical analysis would 
 indicate to be of good (juality, can hold such virulent ])oison. 'I'here 
 is no evidence to show that water, made clear and pure by inter- 
 mittent filtration or hy irrigation-treatment, does hold such poison, 
 and the jirobabilities are all against it. Pumjielly’s experiments 
 are not at all in ])oint. Those experiments related only jirospec- 
 tively to the filtering capacity of soils. The nearest ajijiroacli to 
 a soil used in any of those exiieriments was loess taken forty feet 
 below the surface, and in nowise comparable with ordinary soil as 
 a ])urifier of foul waters. Most of the experiments were made w'ith 
 calcined sand or other sterile media. All that they j)roved was, 
 that sterilized sand, asbestos, pure charcoal, kaolin and loess will 
 not remove certain bacteria from water filtered through it, and this 
 has nothing whatever to do with the ])rohlem in hand. 
 
 No instance has come to my knowledge, nor do I believe that an 
 instance has ever been recorded, where sewage filtered through 
 surface-soil, with a reasonable intermit fence of application, has ever 
 carried the germs of disease into the subsoil. Tn investigations 
 made at Gennevilliers it was found that, while the sewage n])|)lied at 
 the surface contained over twenty thousand living organisms per 
 cubic centimeter, the effluent taken from the under-drains, through 
 which the purified sewage ])asses away, contained only a dozen 
 harmless bacteria. One closely-covered, unventilated cesspool, 
 standing within the drainage-reach of a brook, would probably 
 deliver more “ germs ” in a day, than a well-used irrigation-field of 
 ten acres would deliver to the subsoil s<ream flowing under it in a 
 year. 
 
 'I'he conditions established in the report, for the application of 
 intermittent fill rat ion indicate that, wherever possible, there shotdd 
 be. a great dej)fh of well-drained earth between the surface and the 
 ])ermanent water-levid of the ground. This is well, of course, as 
 facilitating thorough amaition, and possibly as increasing the future 
 purifying capacity of the area, but it is not imperative, d'he ‘])urifi- 
 
The Report of the Massachusetts Drairuiffe Commission. 15 
 
 cation takes place very near to the surface, and it is effected by pro- 
 cesses which, under natural conditions, are not active at a great depth. 
 Therefore, while it is advantageous to secure a depth of six feet or 
 more, it is not worth the inordinate cost of heavy grading which such 
 a condition would often imjdy. A modification of the recommenda- 
 tions, in this respect, would make many an area available quite near 
 to a town, while ground meeting the more rigid requirement could 
 be reached only at much expense, and at the risk of fouling the 
 ground-water with crude sewage in transit. 
 
 It would seem that, in this respect, as in some others, too much 
 reliance has been placed on the actual experience of English- 
 sewage farms. It should be remembered that these farms were 
 established, and the general method of their management, as well 
 as the theory of their operation, were pitched, fifteen or twenty 
 years ago. As English engineers sometimes fail to adopt new ideas 
 till others have made them old, there has been no recent material 
 modification of the principle of their construction and management. 
 There has, during this time, been a very material increase of knowl- 
 edge on the subject, and if all the sewage-farms of England could 
 be blotted out, and if the art could be considered anew, in the 
 light of what is now known, some important modifications would be 
 made. Therefore, while the experience there gained is most con- 
 vincing and of great value, we ought not to regulate the scope and 
 scale of our works according to what we find there. 
 
 It is not necessary that broad-irrigation farms should be level, or 
 nearly so ; it is only desirable. However irregular the surface, and 
 however steep its slopes, it is susceptible of a complete and siifK- 
 ciently uniform flooding by processes well-known to those who 
 arrange works of irrigation, where even a steep mountain-side is 
 made to receive an adequate flow in all its parts. Then, too, it is 
 important that any system of irrigation should also be only a system 
 of infiltration. No sewage should ever, unless by a method securing 
 long exposure, flow to a surface-carrier which would lead it to a 
 water-course ; the area covered by the discharge of sewage should be 
 more than large enough to absorb it completely. This is a matter of 
 easy regulation, and there would be no excuse, were such a system 
 
IG 
 
 The lleport of the fMassoch usetls J>r<i'uia(ie ( hnn mission. 
 
 a(loj)te(l, for sewage from any lialf-well ai'ranged se])arate system 
 ever reacliing a water-course before filtration. The ease with wliich 
 this restriction could he enforced Avonld he greatly aided hy a suit- 
 able level tract available for more intensified filtration when the 
 ground might he saturated with rain, or when, for any other reason 
 it Avas desirable to dispose of the flow differently. 
 
 In looking over the whole subject, it seems curious that five gentle- 
 men selected by the highest authority as fittest for the conduct of this 
 study, as well as the three engineers chosen by themselves to aid 
 them, should liaA'e failed so signally to acipiaint themselves with 
 the present state of human knowledge concerning it. Indeed, they 
 seem, one and all, except for a brief foot-note by Mr. Clarke, to he 
 quite unaware of the existence of the most interesting, the most 
 important and the most useful facts that have ever been established 
 in connection with the purification of scAvage by application to land. 
 The literary fancy of the commissioner avIio Avrote the report was 
 inspired by a recognized effect, of which he did not recognize the 
 cause, Avhen he referred to Avhat could be done by “ the earth at a 
 touch,” hut noAvhere in the whole document is there more than Mr. 
 Clarke’s casual allusion to the noAv Avell-knoAvn action hy Avhich alone 
 this touch is made effective. 
 
 So far as scientific knoAvledge is concerned, this report might have 
 been Avritten a dozen years ago, before such knowledge existed. 
 There is evinced an implicit and all-suflicient faith in the practical 
 authorities of England ; while the achievements of the biologists of 
 England, of Germany, and of France, seem hardly to have been sus- 
 pected. Tyndal, Warrington, Pasteur, Schloesing, Muntz, Koch and 
 others who have developed the true theory of putrefaction and nitrifi- 
 cation, seem not to have been thought of in this connection. Yet the 
 jiractical operations of beer-making have not been more clearly sliOAvn 
 to he governed by the agency of micro-organisms than have the practi- 
 cal operations of sewage purification. 
 
 The failure to give Aveight to this neAv knoAvledge Avould be of less 
 consecpience — hut it would still he of conseipience in a learned essay 
 like this — if the neglected knoAvledge Avere not necessary to the 
 giving of sound advice. Until very lately Ave have pinned our faith 
 
The Report of the Mcmachusetts Drninage Commission. 17 
 
 to “aeration,” “oxidation” and “the action of vegetation,” and 
 have tried to guess how we miglit best suit our projects to the 
 methods thus suggested. We now know that, so far as the removal 
 of nitrogenous matters from sewage in tlie soil is concerned, aeration 
 is a condition, oxidation is an effect, and the action of vegetation is 
 an unneeded sequel to the real purifying cause. The cause itself lies 
 in the life processes of minute organisms which, and ivJiich alone, 
 compass the complete destruction of the filth that it is our aim to 
 annihilate. 
 
 An attempt to tell a community how to get rid of its organic 
 wastes by soil purification which is not based on what is known of 
 these processes — comparatively little though it is — is empirical. 
 Before the facts were known, such an attempt was more than justifi- 
 able; now that they are known, it is hardly to be passed over with- 
 out comment in the case of such thorough and costly work as that 
 under consideration. 
 
 Tested by existing positive knowledge, the recommendations of 
 this commission, and the hypotheses on which they are based, are 
 seen to need much reconsideration and modification. In such recon- 
 sideration the following facts, among others, should be regarded : — 
 
 1. It would be extravagant, under such regulations as would nec- 
 essarily be enforced in Massachusetts, to adopt the English estimate 
 of one acre to each one hundred of the population. That means 
 providing for an enormous amount of storm-water, often for very care- 
 less farming, and generally for a very wide margin to spare. If the 
 Massachusetts towns were to be sewered on a strictly separate sys- 
 tem, which no English town is, it would be perfectly safe to provide 
 one acre for each five hundred of the population. Indeed, wherever 
 the soil is open and free, this figure might be doubled, and that, too, 
 without interfering with an important agricultural use of the sewage, 
 as at Gennevilliers, where the sewage never flows over the land at 
 all, all being absorbed laterally from ditches, and where the agricul- 
 tural result has been so remarkable as to increase the rental of the 
 land fivefold. 
 
 2. Sewage, as such, is not taken up by crops. Before its fertiliz- 
 
1 
 
 18 'J'he Report oj the M((ss(ich usetts J)r(iui(i(/e (.'oiii/nis.sifoi. 
 
 ing ])arts l)ecome available foi’ llieir use, their conilunations have been 
 broken down and their oi’ganic ebai-acter destroyed. 
 
 3. Sewage does not contain a “virulent ])oison,” using tlie words in 
 their ordinary acceptation. Its morbific effect is due to organized 
 and living entities. These are not immortal. They are subject to 
 the dissolution that awaits all living things. "I'hey seem to be pecu- 
 liarly subject to the action of the bacterium which pro<luces ordinary 
 putrefaction. Experiments in the Surgeon General’s laboratory at 
 ^^"ashington have shown that in the cultivation of specific germs it 
 is as important to exclude the hacterium-termo as it is in starting 
 young vegetaliles to get rid of “ jiusley.” If this greedy scavenger 
 once gains a foothold he sweeps the gelatine field clean of all artifi- 
 cial cultures. There is not the least reason to doubt, and there is 
 much reason to suppose, that in the soil, and in an aerated stream, it 
 performs the same office, exce[)t, in the latter case, under very low 
 temperatures. In the soil the sewage supjilies the re([uisite beat even 
 in winter. 
 
 4. There is also reason to believe that the organic parts of sewage, 
 like all other organic wastes added to the soil or to the river, or so 
 much of them at least as is not used as food by insects, fishes, etc., 
 is destroyed always and only by a jirocess akin to })utrefaction. 
 This is a process of oxidation which cannot take place without the 
 intervention of life-processes. This being the case, what we have to 
 provide are the conditions which are best suited to the development of 
 the destroying organism. This involves aeration, it results indirectly 
 in oxidation, and it furnishes pabulum for vegetation, if vegetation is 
 there. The destruction of the waste must take place before roots can 
 act on it. Vegetation is not necessary for purification. 
 
 The purification at the Sherburn Prison may be defective. The 
 conditions arediflicult — more difficult than was understood when the 
 work was done (in 1879) — but the only evidence of im})urity that has 
 ever come to my notice is the detection of chlorides and nitrates in the 
 outflow. It is now known that, from a sanitary point of view, chlo- 
 rides and niti-ates, while they indicate a sewage origin, indicate also 
 the annihilation of the sewage character. They are harmless mineral 
 matters, whicdi, if unaccom{)anied by incompletely purified sewnige, 
 may be admitted into drinking-water streams without disadvantage. 
 
The Report of the Massachusetts Drainage Commission. 19 
 
 5. The process of destruction, under natural conditions, takes 
 place only in or very near the fertile soil at the surface — probably 
 to the extent of at least nine-tenths, within the first six inches, and 
 practically not at all below a depth of twelve inches. We have as 
 yet no means of knowing how far below the surface the activity of 
 the process maybe carried by overdosing the surface layer and send- 
 ing impurities farther down. The indications are that it would 
 never go much below twelve or fifteen inches. Therefore, while an 
 additional four or five feet of loose gravel or sand may facilitate the 
 escape of the purified water and hasten the admission of air, we can 
 get on with much less than this, and it would often be worth while in 
 the interest of economy as well as of fertility, to double the breadth 
 rather than the depth. If this is admitted to be true, the proposed 
 extra expenditure of $45,000 at Westborough is not necessary, and 
 the same condition would probably obtain in other cases considered. 
 
 6. The destroying organisms above referred to being active only in 
 the surface soil, there exists, so far as we yet know, no substitute for 
 them in the subsoil, however porous. The danger to our water 
 courses comes chiefly from the leakage of filth at considerable depths 
 especially of filth which has fermented without sufficient access of 
 air. It is here that we ought chiefly to look for our means of pro- 
 tection. Not only should everything be done that can be done to 
 make local drains and sewers tight and to abolish cesspools and privy 
 vaults altogether, but we should, as far as possible, avoid the risk that 
 inevitably attends 'the transportation of sewage through deep con- 
 duits, as these are practically certain to be made. This may not be 
 avoided within the towns themselves, but it seems most unwise to in- 
 cur the further risk of conveyance through long collecting sewers. 
 
 There are other details which should be regarded in any attempt 
 to solve such a problem as the one in hand, but these are enough to 
 indicate the insufficiency of the work described, and to suggest doubts 
 as to the wisdom of the recommendations made in this report. 
 
 Should the subject be taken up again, with due regard to the facts 
 above suggested, the scheme devised v.'ill have a much less gigantic 
 aspect; the result will be better, and the cost will be less. 
 
Oaylora Bros. 
 
 Makers 
 
 Syracuse, v 
 
 JAM. 21 , 1991