Collection and Disposal of Garbage and Refuse

Fig. 10: Back Yards Before the Spring Clean-Up	Fig. 11: A Court in a Crowded Tenement District
Fig. 12: Their Only Playground	Fig. 13: One of the City Dumps

The systematic collection of garbage was first instituted in New Haven in 1876 through the efforts of that pioneer sanitarian, Prof. W. H. Brewer. It was first placed under the control of the Board of Health, but with a growing realization of the fact that the handling of municipal wastes is rather an engineering than a health problem, it was, in 1915, removed, at the request of the Board of Health, from the jurisdiction of the Board and placed under the Department of Public Works.

At present the collection of garbage is carried out by the city itself in the region between Chapel Street on the southeast and State Street and Mill River on the southwest, while two contractors care for the southeasterly and southwesterly sections. The contracts call for collection in covered metal wagons at three to four day intervals during November, December, January, February, March and April, and on alternate week days during May, June, July, August, September and October. That this periodicity of collection does not obtain is known to all and evidenced by the large number of complaints. During the years 1911-15 there have been on the average about 2800 complaints each year, and during the first eleven months of 1916 there were about 2500. The city imposes a fine of $5 upon the contractors for each infraction not answered in 24 hours, and this helps in checking laxity of the collectors.

In order to obtain a better idea of the actual efficiency of the service, a, house-to-house canvass was conducted by Mr. O'Brien during two periods of a week each, once in June and once in August.

Mr. O’Brien reports as follows:

Streets were selected at random, generally one from each of the first twelve wards, so as to get a fairly representative idea of conditions throughout the city, and twelve consecutive houses on each street (six on a side) were canvassed for the stated time. Of the streets selected, some were of the poorer class, some of the better class. The condition of the garbage can and the amount of garbage present were noted in each case every day. In this way it was easy to tell whether or not a collection [40] had been made. If there was any doubt, careful questioning of the householder generally cleared up the situation.

A study of the records as summarized in the table below indicates that the service is irregular and falls very far short of the three collections a week called for by the contracts. Nor is the collection by the city any better than that carried out by the private contractors.

A noticeable feature of the present canvass was the dirty and fly-breeding condition of a very large number of garbage cans. In many instances the contents were practically a solid mass of maggots. The fault here seems to be both with the garbage collector for not coming more frequently, and scraping the cans more thoroughly when he does come, and with the householder for not scalding and washing the can after it is emptied. Carelessness and negligence on the part of the collectors were evident from the number of houses 'skipped' upon a street, and from the spilling of garbage in the yard during the transfer from one can to another. The disreputable condition of many of the cans, such as lack of covers, cracks, exposure to flies, etc., is the fault of the tenant or owner of the house. The practice of throwing garbage upon the ash heap and in the yard was due either to the filling of the garbage can and the irregularity of collection, or to the insanitary habits of the householder, or to both. In many instances tenants were obliged to burn or bury their garbage to eliminate nuisance.

GARBAGE COLLECTIONS IN ONE WEEK. SUMMER, 1916

Location	One	Two	Three
† Gregory, 90-118		Sat., Tues.
† Elm 569-599		Wed., Sat.
* Oak, 528-504		Sat., Mon. (very irreg.)
* Cedar, 260-252	Sat.
* Warren, 26-28		Tues., Thurs
* Wallace, 61-92	Tues
* Blatchley, 162-140	Mon
* Blatchley, 432-420		Mon., Wed.
* East, 534-554	Thurs
† Humphrey, 260-290		Wed., Fri.
* High, 25-37			Mon., Wed., Sat. (very irreg.)
* Contractor’s collection
† City collection

[41]

Even more serious perhaps is the question of the refuse other than garbage, for the collection of which the city makes no provision at all. Ashes, rubbish and other classes of refuse must be disposed of on the initiative and at the expense of the householder. There are some 50 to 70 collectors who undertake this work without any sort of regulation or supervision. In some districts collections are made with reasonable regularity at a charge of ten cents a barrel. In the poorer sections the refuse accumulates in barrels or makeshift ash bins or in piles in the yards during a period of months and during the spring clean-up is carted away for $1.50 to $2 a load. It is, of course, inevitable that much true garbage of an offensive nature is generally mixed in with these accumulations of ashes and rubbish.

Mr. O'Brien inspected the back yards in selected districts and took many photographs like Figs. 10-13. He found the yards in such streets as Elm, Gregory, Humphrey and Blatchley Avenue to be most of them in good condition, but on Oak, Cedar, Warren, Wallace and East Streets many dirty yards were found. Thus of two of these regions lie says:

"On Cedar Street, No. -, garbage, papers, cans, etc., thrown in the yard and ash heap, and covered with flies; at No. -, garbage spilled in the yard causing sniell ; at No. -, garbage spilled about the call and garbage, cans, etc., in the ash heap, with flies very numerous; at No. -, garbage thrown in the ash heap in large amount and drawing flies; the yard, especially the ash heap, very dirty and smelly. The large number of flies in all the yards on this street was remarkable."

"On Warren Street the yard was heaped with garbage, rubbish, etc., at No. - the yard was dirty, and the people were burning the rubbish ; at No. - the yard was dirty and there was garbage about; at Nos. - and - the yards were dirty; at No. - the yard was dirty and had garbage in it; and at No. - the vard was dirty, and had a very noticeable number of flies."

We do not feel that the Board of Health is responsible for the existence of these unfortunate conditions. On the contrary we were impressed with the general efficiency of the department in this respect and with the great relative improvement effected by the vigorous clean-up campaign which is conducted by the various departments during the spring months. If there is no systematic public collection of refuse, other than garbage, the accumulation in bins and yards of great masses of filth, particularly during the winter, is inevitable in the poorer quarters of the city.

Dirty back yards are not to-day regarded as of primary importance considered purely from the standpoint of the public health. Except for the problem of fly breeding, which will be discussed in a later section, the [42] removal of the conditions described would not appreciably affect the death rate. Civic cleanliness is, however, important for its own sake. Public decency must be considered as well as public health. The dilapidated and overflowing rubbish bins and the untidy back yards of New Haven can scarcely fail to strike an observant visitor, familiar with conditions in other cities. These conditions are not creditable to the city, and as a matter of proper civic pride should not be permitted to continue.

It may be pointed out that "proper disposal of city waste (sewage, garbage, ashes, rubbish, etc.)" is one of the special needs urged upon us by Dr. Wright in a letter of April 18, 1916. We cordially agree; and therefore make:

Recommendation X. That the present system of garbage collection should be improved so as actually to secure in all sections of the city the regular and frequent removals now called for by agreements with contractors; and that a regular public system of collection be instituted for other classes of refuse.

The garbage collected in the city of New Haven is utilized for the feeding of swine, that from the central section at a municipal piggery at the Springside Home and that from the sections served by contractors at farms in Westville and Fair Haven Heights.

Statistics as to the amount of garbage collected are available only for the city's district, in which the yearly collection amounts to 2820 loads of two tons each. The total appropriation for garbage collection is $26,000, of which the two contractors receive $5000 and $6000 apiece. The operating expenses of the piggery amounted in 191.5 to $2505.69 and the profits from the sale of pigs to $15,589.39, leaving a net profit on garbage disposal of $13,083.70, enough to pay all but $2000 of the cost of collection in the municipally served area. Thus the total net cost of collection and disposal, including the sums paid to contractors, amounts to about $13,000 or less than 9 cents per capita. A near-by Connecticut city of about the size of New Haven pays over $50,000 for the collection and disposal (by reduction) of its garbage. In general, experience shows that the feeding of garbage to pigs is the most profitable method of disposal for all except very large cities, and New Haven is to be congratulated on the financial success of this procedure in its own case. A part of the low cost may, however, be explained as due to the defective service noted above. Conditions at the piggeries are also not altogether satisfactory and will require the attention of the city authorities in the near future.

The refuse other than garbage, collected by the private collectors, is taken to the city dumps, of which there are fifteen, and to some private dumps. Refuse dumps are objectionable as sources of dust, as starting points for fires, and as breeding places for insects. The problem of a [43] better system of ultimate disposal must some day be faced. The increasing value of paper may easily make a plant for the utilization of wastes of this character a source of profit to the city. A system of municipal collection must in any case be a preliminary to improved methods of ultimate disposal; and the elimination of the thousands of small dumps which now disfigure the back yards of the city is the condition which requires most immediate attention.