[발췌: M.V. Melosi's] The Sanitary City

출처: Martin V. Melosi (2008). The Sanitary City: Environmental Services in Urban America from Colonial Times to the Present. University of Pittsburgh
자료: 구글도서


※ 발췌 (excerpt): pp. 61~

Chapter 5

Subterranean Networks: Wastewater Systems as Works in Progress, 1830-1880

In contrast with strides made in waterworks, the development of underground wastewater systems was meager between 1830 and 1880. Noted sanitary engineer William Paul Gerhaud observed that progress in sewerage had been much slower than water supply. "This can be, in a measure, explained by the fact that taxpayers are nearly always willing to pay a small annual tax for water," he argued, "and hence the financial success of such a scheme is rarely in doubt, whereas a sewerage system does not yield an annual revenue, but, on the contrary causes sometimes large operating expenses." "It is," he concluded, "... a much more difficult matter to induce communities to introduce a sewer system."

Gerhard recognized what historian Sam Bass Warner Jr. has called a "first things first" philosophy, in which basic improvements in sewage disposal were being forced to wait "until the water supply problems were solved."[n.2] Few cities were in a position to finance two major technologies of sanitation simultaneously. Private companies had footed the bill for the early development of water-supply systems, sometimes with governmental support, but a similar path for sewerage systems was unlikely because its revenue-generating potential was limited.

Eventually, underground sewers came to be recognized as valuable in starving off epidemics, preventing flooding, and making available connections to water closets. But the initial public support for them was sluggish. Privy vaults and cesspools had been relatively effective and inexpensive disposal options until piped-in water was available. Open ditches sufficed as storm drains in communities not yet experiencing rapid expansion. In New York City, many property holders in the 1850s resisted connecting to sewers where they were available, since the law did not compel them to do so. Landlords of the poor were unwilling to make connections on their property, ready to let their tenants endure the stench of the privies and cesspools.[n.3]

In essence, many people failed to see the advantage of a system that evacuated something as unwanted as sewage when other methods of disposal were available. The Chadwickian notion of bringing the serpent's tail into the serpent's mouth had no more advocates in the US than in England. With such inertia to overcome, the "pre-sewer" era carried on into the late 19th century. Even in places where some underground conduits and extensive surface-drainage systems existed, ordinances often prohibited the disposal of fecal matter into sewers.[n.4]

Expanding urban populations and piped-in water began to challenge the old methods of sewage disposal as early as the 1830s. As in England, water closets appeared in some middle-class homes soon after running water became available. Since the early market was small, the initial impact on sewage-disposal habits was minimal. For example, New York City had only about 10,000 water closets for a population of 630,000 in 1856. In 1864, Boston(180,000) had only 14,000, and in 1874 Buffalo(125,000) had only 3,000.

As running water became more common, the cesspool-privy vault systems began to fail. In 1880, approximately one-third of all urban households had water closets, and water-consumption rates were rapidly increasing. The greater volume of water used in homes, businesses, and industrial plants flooded cesspools and privy vaults, inundated yards and lots, and posed a major health hazard.[n.5]

Breakdown of the old methods came as a result of a clash between incompatible technical systems. Privy vaults and cesspools could not contend with a water-delivery system that increased volume so dramatically. It was the environmental implications of this clash of technologies that provided momentum for change Flooding problems, and especially threats to health, were directly traceable to the breakdown of the pre-sewer systems. Yards inundated with wastes became new battlegrounds for programs of environmental sanitation.

Because of high costs and planning necessary to construct and maintain citywide sewerage systems immediate change did not occur. ( ... ... )