Municipal housecleaning

by William Parr Capes; Jeanne Daniels Carpenter

Cooking Process

Advantages.—The cells of the material are more completely broken down so that a larger amount of grease can be more readily recovered; all material is enclosed during the process so that the gases are more readily deodorized with less volume to be deodorized; in the modern plants the mechanical condition of the by-products is better.

Disadvantages.—Increased fixed cost of building and equipment; increased operating cost; increased maintenance cost.

Osborn believes that by-products produced by either method have the same relative market value. In plants that have been operated by both methods, the experience has been that the additional amount of grease recovered by the cooking method has more than offset the increased costs and at the same time the odors were eliminated to a larger extent.

In establishing a reduction plant, Rudolph Herring says that the great fear is creating a nuisance. He further asserts that, owing to unpleasant odors apt to arise at the works, it is necessary to have good ventilation and also a subsequent treatment of some of the vapors and liquids which result from the process. These contingencies make it advisable, he thinks, to locate the plant in a neighborhood where the possibility of occasional unpleasant odors will not materially injure value of adjoining property.

The Chicago Waste Commission gives this suggestion as a solution of the odor problem: “In addition to the steam and electrical power that can be furnished from a destructor plant to operate a reduction plant, the exhausting of all gases carrying odors from the reduction works and passing them through the destructor would prove one of the greatest advantages from a sanitary and economical standpoint to be derived from a combined method of disposal of all municipal wastes.”

Osborn says: “Economical results may be obtained by utilization of heat in the disposal of garbage mixed with other refuse, by burning, but to prove satisfactory the maximum sanitary results must be obtained at a minimum cost, and when the quantity is such that it will warrant utilization the reduction method will continue to show more economical results, and with proper attention given to details and sanitary features the work can be conducted without nuisance.”

Reduction is a method which can be adopted only by large cities. It seems to be usually agreed that cities with less than 100,000 population and producing less than 75 tons of garbage daily will find the reduction process will not pay as a business venture. One writer says in no place of less than 150,000 population can these kind of plants be operated successfully. Venable places the minimum population at 100,000. He says that as approximately 80 per cent. to 90 per cent. of kitchen garbage is water and only 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. is composed of grease and other substances it takes a large amount of garbage to make reduction plants profitable.

The cost of a reduction plant will range from $1,500 to $3,000 per ton daily capacity, according to published reports.

The gross cost of garbage destruction by the reduction method varies from $1.50 to $2.50 per ton of raw garbage. In only a few instances does the sale of the by-products meet or exceed expenses. In a majority of cases, the process is carried on by private companies, the most being subsidized by cities to amounts varying from 50 cents to $2.50 per ton. A few companies pay the city for all garbage delivered to the plant.

The by-products of the reduction method are grease and tankage. It is generally agreed that ordinary garbage contains from 2 per cent. to 3 per cent. by weight of grease and must yield from 200 to 400 pounds of tankage per ton.

Columbus, Ohio, has been conducting experiments in making alcohol from green garbage and its reports indicate that cities having reduction plants may produce another by-product from their waste. The experiments were carried on for some time under the direction of the assistant superintendent in cooperation with Dr. James J. Morgan, a Chicago chemist who has patented a process of distilling the alcohol from chemically-treated garbage. It requires only a slight addition to the present processes of the plant. The garbage is treated with a two per cent. solution of sulphuric acid for cooking, then with lime and finally with yeast for fermentation. The claim is made that the amount of grease and tankage is not reduced by the process, and it is estimated that every ton of garbage will yield about six gallons of alcohol. The superintendent of the Division of Garbage and Refuse Disposal in November, 1917, informed the New York State Bureau of Municipal Information that the final report on the experiment “was favorable to the process, but our city council did not see fit to authorize the installation of the necessary equipment for the process.”

J. W. Turrentine says that on a basis of figures obtained in the operation of a number of reduction plants, it is shown that the average cost of reduction is $2.41 per ton, and the gross receipts $3.30 per ton, giving a profit of 89 cents per ton raw garbage. He asserts that when consideration of cost of collection is excluded, the rendering of garbage is distinctly more profitable than incineration.

Cleveland and Columbus have been the cities most successful in operating municipal reduction plants. In one year the Columbus plant received 21,628.97 tons of garbage, or 211 pounds of garbage per capita. From this and the 183 large dead animals received, the actual production was as follows: Grease, 1,186,985 pounds; tankage, 1,753 tons; hides, 183. The value of these by-products were: Grease, $57,672.21; tankage, $12,987.84; hides, $1,062.30, or a total of $66,772.35.

Each ton of garbage produced 54.87 pounds of grease and 162.1 pounds of tankage. The grease value per ton of garbage was $2,435; the tankage, 60 cents, and the hides 5 cents, or a total of $3,085 per ton of garbage. The actual cost of operation was $40,220.78 or $1,859 per ton. The net profits were $26,502.57 or $1.226 per ton of garbage.

Cleveland in one year produced 2,940,000 pounds of grease and 10,016,000 pounds of tankage, the city receiving for them $151,162.48. This reduction cost per ton of green garbage was $1.97½ and the earnings per ton of green garbage was $3.47, making the net earnings per ton of garbage $1.49½.

New York City is selling its garbage to a private company. It made a contract for 1914 to 1916, inclusive, and the right to renew the contract for two more years on the same terms and conditions. The city receives at the rate of $62,500 for the first, $87,500 for the second, and $112,500 for the third and each of the succeeding two years. Plans are now being made to operate a municipal plant.

Table VII
METHODS AND COST OF DISPOSING OF GARBAGE
Name	Method of Disposal	By Whom Done	City Own Dump? If Not, Annual Rental	City Own Farm and Hogs?	Is farm Rented by City?	Kind of Plant	Capacity	When Built	Design	Any Odor?	Annual Cost of Operation	By- Products	What is Done with By-Products	Annual Revenue from By-Products	Net Cost of Disposal[[53]]		Net Profit
															Per Ton	Year
New York City[[54]]	Reduction.	Contract. Building municipal plant.				Reduction.	2,000 tons.	1896	Arnold.			Grease and tankage.					$112,500 a yr.
Buffalo	Dumping and Incineration.	Contract.	Some of them.			Incineration.	40 tons.	1903	Heenan-Froude.						$1.25
Rochester	Reduction.	Contract. City has decided to own its plant.				Reduction.		1907	Genesee Reduction Co.			Grease and tankage.
Albany	Fed to pigs.	Contract.		No.	No.
Binghamton	Feeding and burning.	Private sanitary companies.		No.	No.
Schenectady	Reduction.	City.				Reduction.	30 tons.	1914	Chamberlain.	Yes.	$27,000.00	Tankage and grease.	Sold.	$3,000.00	10.23	$34,200.00
Syracuse	Reduction.	Contract, planning municipal operation.								At times.
Troy	Dumping.	Contract.	$12,000
Yonkers	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	9 tons.	1839	N. Y. Garbage Crematory.	No.	3,380.50				1.40	3,880.50
Utica	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.				Very little.		Grease.	Sold for soap, residue used for fuel.			4,100.00
New Rochelle	Incineration.							1917	Morse-Boulger.
Watertown	Feeding to pigs.			No.	No.
Auburn	Dumping and ploughing under.
Beacon	Dumping for fill.		No. No rental.
Mechanicville	Dumping for fill.	Contract.	No. No rental.
Dunkirk	Feeding and ploughing under.		No.	No.	No.
Saratoga	Dumping.		$50 per yr.
Middletown	Dumping for fill.		No.
Kingston	Dumping.		No.
Jamestown	Ploughing under.	Contract.	No.
Fulton	Dumping for fill.		Yes.													600.00
Port Jervis	Dumping.	Contract.	No.													960.00[[55]]
Elmira	Incineration and dumping.	Dumping only by city.	No. $300.			Incineration.	Uses about half city garbage.	1906		No.		None.
Salamanca	Dumping.	City.
Rome	Dumping.
Niagara Falls	Dumping in river.
Cortland	Dumping.	Contract.	No.													200.00[[56]]
Cohoes	Dumping.		Owned by contractor.
Plattsburgh	Dumping on land and in water.		One dump.
Ithaca	Dumping for fill.	City.	Some. No rental.
Olean	Feeding to hogs.			No.	No.
Johnstown	Dumping.		No. $100 per year.
Ogdensburg	Dumping.
Gloversville	Dumping.	Contract.	Yes.
Hudson	Feeding to hogs.	Contract.	No.	No.	No.
Little Falls	Feeding to hogs.	Contract.		No.	No.
North Tonawanda	Ploughed under.	Contract.	No. No rental.
Newburgh	Feeding and ploughing under.	Contract.		No.	No.
Norwich	Dumping.		No. $50.
Mount Vernon	Feeding and dumping for fill.	Contract.	Contractor rents it.	No.	No.
Lockport	Feeding and dumping.	City.	Yes.	No.	No.
Hornell	Feeding and ploughing under.	City.	No. $50.	No.	No.
Rensselaer	Feeding and dumping.	City.	Yes.	No.	No.
Batavia	Dumping and feeding.	City.	Yes.	No.	No.
Tonawanda	Feeding and dumping.	Contract.	No.	No.	No.
Corning	Feeding to hogs.	Contract.	Contractor owns farm.	No.	No.
Oswego	Dumping on land.
Canandaigua	Feeding to hogs.	Private company.		No.	No.
Borough of Queens	Crematories, dumping and reduction.	Crematories and dumps by city. Reduction by contract.	No.			3 crematories.	30 tons.[[57]]	1900			.161 cu. yd.[[58]]
Amsterdam	Incineration.	City.
Poughkeepsie	Dumping.	City.	No.
Atlanta, Ga.	Incineration.	Contract.				Incineration.	250 tons.	1913	Destructor Co.	None from operation.	25¢ per ton	Cinders.	Dumped.	None.	[[59]]	[[59]]	[[59]]
Columbus, Ohio	Reduction.	City.				Reduction.	200 tons.	1910		Slight.	$1.86	Grease, tankage, hides.	Sold.	$66,772.35			$1.226 per ton
Cincinnati, O.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.			Heenan-Froude.	Not 50 feet outside wall	$68,892.45	Electric power.	Operates pumping station.	$10,000.00	$1.26[[60]]
Milwaukee, Wis.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	300 tons.	1910
Detroit, Mich.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.			Detroit Reduction Co.						City pays nothing.
Washington, D. C.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.		1900	Arnold.	40 miles from city.		Grease and tankage.	Sold.		$2.31[[61]]		$1.89 per ton[[62]]
St. Louis, Mo.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.	400 tons.	1913		Occasionally		Grease and tankage.	Sold.		.87[[63]]
Lawrence, Mass.	Feeding to pigs.			Two loads daily sent to Poor Farm. Rest sold.													$1.25 a load.
New Orleans, La.	Dumping for fill.	City.	Yes.
Hartford, Conn.	Feeding to pigs and burned.	City.	Yes.	No.
Baltimore, Md.	Reduction.	Contract.														68,000.00[[64]]
Bridgeport, Conn	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.	60 tons.	1910		Occasionally.					50[[64]]
Cleveland, O.	Reduction.	City.				Reduction.	300 tons.	1905	Newburgh Reduction Co.	Very little.	$132,890.00	Grease and tankage.	Sold.	$195,000.00			$1.49½ per ton
Lowell, Mass.	Fed to pigs.																$5,919.77
Cambridge, Mass.	Fed to pigs.																$15,000.00[[65]]
Louisville, Ky.	Dumping.		No.
Pittsburgh, Pa.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.				Yes.					$2.25	$290,000.00
Denver, Col.	Fed to hogs.	Contract.		No.											Free.
Savannah, Ga.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	130 tons.	1914	Heenan-Froude.	No.	.615[[56]]	Steam and clinker.	Used on roads.		.36
Chicago, Ill.	Reduction and incineration.	City.				Reduction.	900 tons.	1913	Arnold.	Very little.		Dried garbage.	Sold.			$144,744.00
Kansas City, Mo.	Fed to pigs.	Contract.		No.
Boston, Mass.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.										$925,318.56[[66]]
Lynn, Mass.	Fed to pigs.
Grand Rapids, Mich.	Fed to pigs.			No.													45¢ per ton.
Minneapolis, Minn.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.		1905	Decarie.	No.		Power.	Heats buildings, lights buildings and streets.	$27,000.00	.85	$16,000.00
St. Paul, Minn.	Fed to hogs.			No.													80¢ per ton.
Jersey City, N. J.	Dumping for fill.	Contract.
Passaic, N. J.	Burial.
Paterson, N. J.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	60 tons.	1912	Destruction Co.	No.			None.		.877[[67]]	$9,527.42	$1.18
Trenton, N. J.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	65 tons.	1901	Davis.	No.		Only ashes.	None.		.48[[69]]	$7,108.37[[69]]
Dayton, O.	Reduction.	City.				Reduction.	125 tons.	1915		Slight.		Grease and tankage.	Sold.
Providence, R. I.	Fed to pigs.		No.
Charleston, S. C.	Dumping.
Nashville, Tenn.	Feeding to hogs.
Seattle, Wash.	Dumping for fill.	City.
Spokane, Wash.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	120 tons.	1908	Decarie.	No.		Ashes.	Sold.	$5.00	.60
Oakland, Cal.	Dumping in ocean and incineration.	Contract.				Incineration.	100 tons.	1907	Decarie.						.60
New Bedford, Mass.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.	30 tons.	1905		No.						$25,500.00
Springfield, Mass.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.	75 tons.	1913		Some.					[[68]]	[[68]]	[[68]]
Portland, Ore.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	150 tons.	1910	F. P. Smith	No.				34[[56]] per ton.	.34[[69]]
Philadelphia, Pa.	Reduction and feeding to pigs.	Contract.				Reduction.	500 tons.			Yes.		Grease and tankage.
Scranton, Pa.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	80 tons.		Lewis & Kitchen Co.	No.	.28	Ashes.	Sold.
Reading, Pa.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	100 tons.	1914		No.				$1.00[[70]]
Richmond, Va.	Incineration.	City.				Incineration.	100 tons.	1910	Morse, Boulger & Decarie.
Los Angeles, Cal.	Reduction and feeding to pigs.	Contract.				Reduction.	300 tons.	1915		No.		Grease and tankage.					51¢ per ton for reduction, $1 for feeding.
San Francisco, Cal.	Reduction.	Contract.				Reduction.	750 tons.	1897	Chas. Thackery patents.	Much.		None.			.60[[71]]
Newark, N. J.	Reduction.	Contract.
Indianapolis, Ind.	Reduction.	Contract.
Toledo, O.
Worcester, Mass.	Feeding to pigs.	City.		Yes.	No.							Manure and hogs.	Sold.	$38,838.67
New Haven, Conn.	Feeding to pigs and composting.			Yes.
Birmingham, Ala.	Dumping on land.	City.
Memphis, Tenn.	Incineration and dumps.	City.	Yes.			Incineration.	50 tons.			Yes, at times.	30¢ to 40¢
Omaha, Neb.	Feeding to pigs.			No.
Fall River, Mass.	Feeding to pigs.	Contract.		No.											No expense.

Glens Falls and Oneonta, N. Y., report that they have no systems.

---

[53]. A Includes interest, depreciation, maintenance and repair charges.

[54]. Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn Boroughs only.

[55]. Collection and disposal.

[56]. No cost for superintendence, man receiving salable rubbish for his pay.

[57]. Eight-hour capacity.

[58]. Includes maintenance and repair charges, and is for crematories only.

[59]. Plant not yet under control of city, court action pending.

[60]. Labor and supply.

[61]. Gross.

[62]. Estimated.

[63]. Contract price.

[64]. Price paid by city.

[65]. City sells for 70¢ per cord ft.

[66]. Includes collection.

[67]. Labor only.

[68]. City may buy plant at end of ten years for $50,000, at end of twenty years it becomes property of city free of cost.

[69]. Does not include interest and depreciation.

[70]. Fuel and wages.

[71]. Price paid reduction company by scavengers.

[72]. Guaranteed.

CARE AND DISPOSAL OF MANURE
REGULATIONS IN MANY AMERICAN CITIES—PROVISIONS FOR STORING AND REMOVING THE WASTE—CARE OF STABLES

Some cities have made very stringent regulations for the care, collection and disposal of stable manure within their limits; others are not so exacting and many have not as yet given any thought to the subject, or if they have no municipal laws have been enacted. The importance of municipal regulation is recognized by all sanitarians, and especially since the house fly has been regarded as one of the chief spreaders of disease. If for no other reason than to eliminate the greatest breeding place of the fly, stable manure should be properly cared for, and stables and other places where animals are kept in cities should be clean.

The regulations of most cities require the individual to dispose of the manure on the premises he owns or occupies. Only a few cities have a municipal collection system or have the work done under contract. In those cities where gardeners and farmers are permitted to collect the waste voluntarily no trouble has been experienced during the winter months when the farmer is not busy on the soil, but during the spring and summer, when the need of cleanliness is greatest, but when the farmer is too busy planting and harvesting, the collection is neglected. Minneapolis is one of the cities which have suffered in this way. In several cities one or more companies deal in manure, maintaining wagons exclusively for collection purposes. The manure is carted either to the railroad direct for shipment or to persons purchasing it. In most instances these companies pay a small amount for the manure. The stable manure in Washington is collected and disposed of in this manner. Toronto, Canada, contracts with four different companies to remove the manure. These make a nominal charge for the collection, the city being under no expense. In Jersey City the waste is carted away by private contractors and most of it is sold to farmers. Denver transfers its stable manure to the city dump where it is hid during the summer months and in the spring is sold to gardeners. The city sanitary inspector does not regard this plan as satisfactory.

There seems to be an unanimity of opinion among most municipal sanitarians that the city itself should be prepared to remove manure when owners or occupants fail or refuse to do so. Every owner should be allowed to sell it if he can; otherwise, it should be regarded as a nuisance, and the city should remove it without compensating the owner, but charging him for the service. Unquestionably as cities continue to grow and as congestion becomes greater such a plan will be adopted by most municipalities.

One of the best systems in operation is that in Columbus, Ohio, where manure is collected by municipal employees from any stable within the city limits. The Columbus ordinance provides that any person desiring to have the manure removed must take out a permit for such service at a yearly charge of $3 for one horse, $5 for two horses and $1 for each additional horse. After the ordinance became a law the Department of Public Safety began to notify the public that from and after April 1, 1912, no manure would be removed without the payment of a fee.

Between September 1 and June 1 the demand for manure is greatly in excess of the supply and the city could sell three or four times as much as it collects. During the remainder of the year there is practically no demand for the waste as farmers cannot handle it.

The collection is made under the following rules: Whenever a person pays to the city treasury the ordinance charge for manure collection the Department of Public Service is notified on a blank form. The name, address, permit number, and number of horses are recorded in alphabetical order. To each of the four drivers employed in collection is given a separate list of barns from which to collect, and each evening he reports the places from which he made collection during the day.

Following is a detailed statement of the cost of collection and the receipts from the sale of manure for 1916 when prices were normal:

Total number of loads hauled	1486
Total number of tons collected	2972
Expenses
Teams and labor	$2,689.25
Superintendent, inspection, etc.	200.21
Repairs, etc.	546.49
Receipts
Sale of manure	$2,029.50
Receipts from citizens for collection	672.00
Cash on hand	15.00
Open account on books for year	148.00
Net cost	739.90
Cost of collection per load	2.31
Cost of collection per load less receipts	.49
Cost of collection per ton less receipts	.24½

The Civil Engineer of the Columbus Health Department says that a market has been found for the entire output of the city, the prevailing price being $2 a wagon load delivered anywhere inside the city limits, and for shipment $15 per average car f. o. b. cars, city loading station. He further says that about 15 per cent. of the manure produced in Columbus, a city of 200,000 inhabitants, is collected. “It seems,” he says, “perfectly possible to collect all manure produced in the city at a very low cost to the municipality, for during the year 1913 only three 2-ton wagons were used in manure collection and they proved to be sufficient to handle the work with ease.”

In Chicago manure must be removed every seventy-two hours and collected by licensed scavengers at the expense of the stable owner. Only during the last two or three years was specific authority over stables granted to the Health Department, which immediately began an inspection of all stables. Of the first 500 inspected it was found that from a sanitary standpoint they were in very poor condition.

An example of stringent regulations in a large city is the ordinance adopted by New York City. It follows:

“No manure vault, pit or bin shall be allowed upon the premises used for stabling purposes, except upon premises used for barning in unimproved sections of the city. All manure and stable refuse shall be kept within the stable and removed daily, or if not removed daily shall be pressed into bales or barrels adequately screened or otherwise protected or covered so that flies cannot have access thereto, or otherwise treated as approved by the Department of Health. All such manure or stable refuse so baled, barreled or treated, shall be removed from stables at least twice weekly.

“The loading of manure for removal shall be done within the stable without causing a nuisance.

“No person shall engage in the business of transporting manure or drive any cart for that purpose, in the City of New York, without a permit therefor issued by the Board of Health or otherwise than in accordance with the terms of said permit and with the regulations of said board.

“The permit issued by the Board of Health shall be securely fastened in a conspicuous place, on the right side near the front of the vehicle used in the transportation of offensive materials. Vehicles used in the transportation of offensive materials while loaded, either wholly or in part, shall not remain on the street or place any unreasonable length of time, and shall not, except when unavoidable, stop in front of any premises other than those from which material is being collected.

“All vehicles and contents therein shall be thoroughly cleaned upon the completion of a day’s use, and so stored as not to cause a nuisance.

“Manure may be transported to a dump operated under a permit issued by the Department of Health or to firms in the unimproved sections of the city, or to points outside the city of New York. Every vehicle used in transporting manure shall be tight and provided with a suitable cover so as to prevent the dropping of manure upon the streets; if the cover be of canvas or of other similar material, it shall be of sufficient size completely to cover the manure within the vehicle and shall be securely fastened on all sides of the vehicle.

“No vehicle engaged in the transportation of manure shall be permitted to load upon the sidewalk, in the alleyway, in the yard or any place except the stable.”

For a small city the ordinance of Newburgh, New York, contains several good suggestions. It is as follows:

“All stables, barns and other places wherein horses or cattle are kept, shall be kept in a clean and sanitary condition. All accumulations of manure shall be stored in such places and be removed with such frequency and in such manner as to prevent offensive and noxious odors. Not more than two loads of horse or cow manure shall be allowed to accumulate on any premises within the city limits and no piles of manure shall be allowed to accumulate in any position or manner whereby they shall become breeding places of flies or whereby any leachings therefrom may pass into any stream or water course. Any violation of this ordinance shall subject the offending party to a penalty of not more than $50 for each offense and for each day’s continuance or repetition of the offense.

“No manure or stable refuse shall be deposited within any building or the cellar thereof unless said receptacle shall be enclosed by eight-inch brick, cement or concrete walls, all of which shall be waterproofed on sides and have cement waterproof floors, and connected with public sewers by suitable tile pipes properly trapped and with suitable fall to carry off all liquid, said outlet to be covered with fine grating or screen, top of said pit or receptacle to be covered with a tight cover and to have a brick, cement, concrete or galvanized iron flue, at least eight inches in diameter, and to be air-tight and to extend to the top or cover of said receptacle or pit up to and through the roof, and at least three feet above said roof and above the roof of any adjoining buildings, access to said pit to be by door hung on suitable hinges and to be kept closed and fastened except when refuse is being deposited in or removed from the same; in no case shall said receptacle be constructed within any building where no connection can be made with public sewers. All receptacles for manure or stable refuse that are constructed outside of any building shall be commenced at least twelve inches below the lowest grade of the land adjoining same and shall be waterproof on both sides and covered with suitable cover properly hinged and to be kept closed except when depositing therein or removing manure or refuse therefrom; the sides of said pit may be constructed of matched plank and as directed by the health officer; all of the above construction must be so done as to make same inaccessible to flies.”

Exceptional regulations have been noted in the following cities: Aberdeen, Washington, does not allow a bin or receptacle to be built nearer to an adjoining house than 25 feet. Manure for agricultural or garden purposes must be thoroughly mixed and covered with soil so as not to attract flies. Bayonne, New Jersey, will not allow any pit nearer than 10 feet to the line of any adjoining lot, alley or public place. Truck gardeners must secure a permit to store manure, and the waste cannot be carted through the streets between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. without a permit. Manure cannot be unloaded, discharged or put upon or along the line of any railroad (except in transit), street or highway. A permit must be secured for cars containing manure to remain on or stand on or along any railroad, street or highway. In Cincinnati disinfectants must be used about those portions of the floor where manure and urine habitually fall or are maintained. Manure stacked for fertilizer on a truck farm must be at least 50 feet from any dwelling and shall be stored in a closed bin or screened receptacle in order to prevent access of flies thereto.

Los Angeles requires a permit from its Health Commissioner for piling manure for fertilization, the permit to designate the place and amount that may be kept. Manure cannot be scattered even if covered in Mankato, Minnesota, except for fertilization or the “protection of plants, shrubs, houses or buildings in winter months.”

North Yakima, Washington, requires that manure used as fertilizer from May 15 to October 15 must be mixed and covered with soil. It cannot be used as grading.

In Oyster Bay, New York, no manure is allowed to be brought in or unloaded or placed on any dock or landing from June 1 to September 1. All manure brought into town must be entirely removed by June 15. All brought in by rail must be unloaded within 250 feet of any station. Several cities provide that all collections or accumulations of any hennery park, stable refuse or manure in or about any hennery park, barn, stable, yard or appurtenance thereof must be removed before the same shall become offensive. Dumping of manure in any river, canal, stream or pond is prohibited in Little Falls, New York. Every person keeping a stable for horses, mules, cows or similar animals in Poughkeepsie, New York, must report his name and the location of the stable to the Health Officer.

There is no general uniformity of regulations as to how often manure shall be removed. In some cities the ordinances are specific, in others the refuse must be removed when ordered by the Board of Health, and in many it must be carted away before it becomes offensive. Some of the various regulations follow: Aberdeen, Washington, every 30 days from April 1 to November 1, and oftener if the Health Officer directs; Bayonne, New Jersey, once a week in all cases where the Board of Health by written notice shall require; Chattanooga, Tennessee, once a week; Cincinnati, Ohio, once a day and disposed of to the satisfaction of the Health Department; Des Moines, Iowa, twice weekly from March 15 to December 1 and once a week thereafter; Erie, Pennsylvania, accumulation of only one wagon load from May 1 to October 1 in any private stable, and two loads in any private or livery stable without permission of Board of Health; Greenfield, Mass., where more than four horses are kept it must be removed at least once a month and no more than five cords are allowed on premises at any one time; Los Angeles, California, every ten days when kept in bins and every day otherwise; Mankato, Minnesota, as often as necessary and when ordered by the Board of Health.

Every city and town should regulate at least the care of manure and in congested communities it is imperative that the city either provide a municipal collection or make provisions whereby the refuse can be removed under contract. Any community which fails to do this continues a nuisance and fails to check the breeding of flies and the possible spreading of disease.

MUNICIPAL CLEAN-UP CAMPAIGNS
INTENSIVE COMMUNITY EFFORTS TO TEACH URBAN RESIDENTS THE NEED OF CLEANLINESS AND FIRE PREVENTION

Cooperative effort to give the municipality a thorough cleaning at least once a year, and, by so doing, to teach the citizen the importance of continuous cleanliness in and about his home, has been undertaken within the last ten years by most American cities. These intensive community efforts are popularly known as clean-up campaigns.

At first the clean-up campaign, lasting a day or two, was devoted to ridding homes and yards of rubbish and waste that had accumulated during the winter months. Later the campaigns were spread over a week or a longer period, and now not only is an effort made to collect and cart away the winter’s accumulation of waste, but the city also undertakes to educate its citizens in fire prevention work, fly and mosquito extermination, the beautifying of homes and yards, and the elimination of every unsanitary condition. Cellars, garrets, back-yards, vacant lots, alleys, public streets—in fact, every spot in the city, whether on public or private property, does not escape the scrutiny of the public officials and citizens’ committees.

The movement spread rapidly until practically every city had at least a spring campaign. Some repeated the effort in the fall. After two or three annual campaigns several municipalities, particularly the larger ones, thought that instead of making a limited intensive effort to clean house, a continuous campaign should be conducted. The advocates of this plan claimed that any periodical effort had a tendency to make the average citizen clean up only during the campaign, and that during the rest of the year he lapsed into his usual indifference. Within the last few years, therefore, some cities have abandoned the clean-up campaigns and have made greater efforts during the entire year to rid the community of all unsanitary conditions.

The clean-up campaign, however, has become a permanent municipal activity in America. It has taught the citizen not only his responsibility in and about his home, but also the need for greater activity by governmental agencies to eliminate general unsanitary conditions.