tank. Almost any of the sandy land which surrounds the low area will be suitable for the disposal of the sewage, and a location should be selected with reference to the cost of grading, and the distance from present and future buildings. It seems probable, from an inspection of the plan submitted and of the ground, that the best location for a filter bed adjoins the low land on the side toward the buildings, in the vicinity of the flush tank or discharger shown upon your plan.

NANTUCKET.

The sewerage committee of Nantucket applied to the Board (October 22) for its advice relative to plans of sewage disposal for that town. Alternative plans were presented, providing for disposal upon land south-east of the town, and for disposal into the sea on the easterly side of the west jetty. The Board, after hearing the committee, replied as follows:

BOSTON, Dec. 16, 1891.

Both projects, as presented, provide for collecting the sewage in a tank constructed in a cove between the steamboat wharf and the railroad, and for pumping it at this place; but beyond this point the projects are different. One provides for pumping the sewage through a pipe to land north of the Siasconset road, and on both sides of the road leading to Monomoy Heights. At the hearing given members of your committee by the Board, it was proposed to modify this plan by locating the filtration area a little further from the town, and south of the Siasconset road above mentioned. It is proposed to purify the sewage by filtering it through this land.

The second project provides for an iron pipe of the same size as that leading to the filtration area, extending through North Beach Street to near the Cliff Range Beacons, thence along the southeasterly side of the jetty to a point fully half a mile from the shore, and not far from the outer end of the jetty, where the sewage is to be discharged only upon the outgoing tide.

In addition to these plans, you have submitted estimates of the cost of the portion of the works at and beyond the pumping station, with the view of showing the comparative costs of the two projects, as follows:

Cost of the works from the pumping station to the disposal area, not including land damages or the preparation of the land for filtration,

Cost of works from the pumping station to the outlet near the outer end of the jetty, not including land damages,

$23,000

30,943

The difference in the estimates is $7,943 in favor of disposal upon land.

With regard to the first plan, which provides for the disposal of the sewage upon land, it may be said that the land selected is of suitable quality for filtering the sewage. If the land is properly prepared for distributing the sewage over it, and proper attention is given to the management of the works, so as to insure the proper distribution of the sewage, and large deposits of decomposing matter are not allowed to accumulate in the storage tank or force-main, there is no reason to doubt that the sewage can be purified by filtration without causing any offence in the vicinity of the disposal area. As a greater precaution, however, the Board favor the suggestion to your committee that the sewage be carried a little farther, to land south of the Siasconset road, which seems to be of equally good quality for the purpose.

With regard to the jetty plan, the Board believes it would be advisable to limit the discharge of sewage to the first two or three hours of the outgoing tide, and to screen the sewage at the storage tank, and remove from it all coarse substances which might float about for a considerable time and possibly reach the shores, and also all lumps of grease which may accumulate in the storage tank. It would not advise, however, the removal of any other foul matters which might during their removal cause an offensive odor in the vicinity of the tank.

With these precautions taken, the jetty outlet would, in the judgment of the Board, dispose of the sewage in an entirely satisfactory manner; because the outlet is a long distance from the shore, and the great quantity of water which passes out by the jetties during every ebb tide insures a sufficient current to carry the sewage so far out to sea that none of it is likely to be found upon any of the beaches.

The figures of comparative cost already given, which show a difference of $7,943 in favor of land disposal, do not show conclusively which plan will involve the greatest ultimate expense. The difference in first cost above given will be reduced when the cost of the land and its preparation is included. The annual expense of operating a land-disposal plan will be considerably greater than the other, both on account of the labor required to distribute the sewage over the land, and on account of the greater height to which the sewage must be lifted. The Board would also suggest that it may be feasible to diminish the cost of the jetty plan, and to improve the grades of the sewers in the low land at Brant Point by locating the pumping station near the Cliff Range Beacons or the shore end of the jetty.

The Board can at present advise that both methods of disposal suggested, with the slight modifications mentioned, will efficiently dispose of the sewage. The choice as to which should be adopted should depend to a considerable extent upon the relative cost of the two systems, taking into account all the items of first cost, including land damages, and also the annual running expenses and maintenance. The choice may also be governed by minor considerations of local nature, and by the possibility of any interference with the attractions of the town as a summer resort.

EASTHAMPTON. A committee of the town of Easthampton applied to the Board (November 14) for its advice relative to a proposed system of sewerage having its outlet into a brook below the town and a short distance from the Manhan River. An additional request was made for advice as to the propriety of building a part of the system with temporary outlets into certain mill-ponds, and into the Manhan River opposite the town. The Board replied as follows:

BOSTON, Jan. 6, 1892.

This plan consists of a system of pipe sewers which will deliver their flow into a main pipe laid through the Williston Mills Pond. This main pipe is to pass around the easterly end of the dam and discharge into the brook below the dam, at the culvert under the Mt. Tom Branch Railroad, not far from the Manhan River. It is further understood that the system is to take sewage only, and not the street or other surface water.

The Board is of opinion that the sewage can, for the present, be discharged into the Manhan River below the town, without causing any serious trouble. The discharge into the brook at the railroad culvert, a short distance from the river, as proposed, is less satisfactory; but, as any trouble which may be occasioned by such discharge can easily be obviated by extending the main sewer to the river, the Board is of opinion that an outlet at this place is temporarily permissible. At some time in the future it is probable that the sewage will have to be purified before being discharged into the Manhan River, or else entirely removed from this stream; and, with this probability in view, the Board commends the adoption of a system of sewers for sewage only, as with a system of this kind the sewage can be treated when necessary with less expense than where the volume flowing is increased by the admission of surface or other water which is not seriously polluted and could go into

the nearest streams.

With regard to the proposition to dispose of the sewage of a

portion of the town for the present into the Nashawannuck and Williston Mills ponds, and into the Manhan River at points opposite the town, the Board does not advise the discharge of sewage into the mill ponds, but is of opinion that the temporary discharge of the sewage into the Manhan River opposite the town is permissible, if it should be found for the interests of the town to provide such temporary outlets. The construction of a permanent outlet at a point just below the dam across the river, for a short sewer in Manhan Street, seems to be unobjectionable.

POLLUTION OF STREAMS.

The following is the substance of the action of the Board relative to the subject of the pollution of inland streams:

66

THE FOWL MEADOWS ON THE NEPONSET RIVER. A complaint was received from C. Sumner of Canton (July 20), concerning a certain tract of land of about six thousand acres, situated on either side of the Neponset River, and adjoining and lying between the towns of Canton, Walpole, Sharon, Hyde Park, Norwood, Dedham and Roxbury in the city of Boston. For the last ten or twelve years the said meadows have been kept in such a state from back water, owing, it is said, to several manufacturing concerns at Hyde Park and below having their dams higher than they should be, that the stench arising therefrom is at times most unbearable, and is the direct cause of much sickness, of malarial and kindred diseases, which were said to be unknown in this locality before such state of affairs existed." The applicant also requested that the Board would take such steps as were within its province, to have the nuisance abated."

The Board replied that it might properly investigate the question as a possible source of illness, but was not aware that any legislation gave to the Board the power to abate it."

The Board instituted an investigation at once, the results of which will be presented in a subsequent portion of this report.

ALEWIFE BROOK. A communication was received from the Board of Health of Medford (Aug. 21, 1891), complaining that the city of Cambridge was "about to widen Ale

wife Brook to give a larger outlet to the river for the sewage." The Board of Health of Medford protested against such action, and requested the State Board to investigate the matter. To this communication the Board replied as follows:

BOSTON, Oct. 7, 1891.

The Board finds that practically all of the improvement relates to the portion of the brook above the tide-gates near Broadway. As these tide-gates shut out the water, the amount of water going out through them at each tide, now that the improvement is completed, is the same as formerly; namely, the amount of upland water and sewage accumulating in the brook while the tide gates are closed. After a heavy storm the conditions may be somewhat different, as the storm water, which formerly required more than one low tide to flow out, may go out in a single tide. After due consideration of the subject the Board does not find any ground for thinking that this improvement of the brook will injuriously affect Medford, while, on account of the lowering of the water, it is a manifest advantage to the portions of Cambridge, and of other towns, near the brook.

1