The Waterbury Democrat., 1935-03-30

Large scale violation of the sec tion of the general statutes which prohibits the pollution of waters of the state by refuse disposal was discovered during the course of a municipal refuse disposal survey, madc by the state blaming board ir cooperation with the state water commission, 1t was announced to- day. z
 The survey was one which the state water commission had sought to carry out for some time. put was prevented from accomplishing because of lack of funds and per- sonnel. Sponsored by the planning board, 1t was carried out with CWA and the EZRA labor under the. supervision of General Sanford H. Wadhams of the state water commission, member of the plan- ming board. The results of the sur vey were tabulated by planning General Wadhams should be of considerable value to municipali- ties and state departments inter- ested in the question of refuse dis posal and pollution.
 The field work started March IF, 1894, and a thorough survey of ~ Connecticut municipalities with 5000 or more population was mdae by unemployed engineers under the direction of William H.. Brothwe!l of Torrington. The field work took approximately two months, while the compilation of statistics con sumed considerably more time.
 The state statutes prohibit the dumping of garbage or refuse in the waters of the state, or within, 50 feet of the high water mark of an ysuch waters, or where storm or high water may carry such ma terial into an adjacent waterway. Tn some localities" says the re- port, "only small deposits were found near streams; in others, large dumps were discovered. Ii
 may be seen that pollution from refuse is almost entirely due to inadequate refuse disposal meth- ,ods." s,g
 The scope of the report was linn tied to the consideration of munich pal Household and store) refuse or waste; and the sewage and in- dustrial waste problems were moi included. The problems related to the disposal of garbage, ashes and rubbish were considered from the standpoint of the municipality. the state and taxpayer.3
 Collection Methods Vary
 Several methods of collection and disposal of these materials were found in use in the state; municipal collection of all or a part of the refuse; collection under contract. collection by scavengers usually without. contracts; private contractors employed by distric, or .association;i licensed collections appointed and paid by the munici- pal as are it's other employees; and disposal by farmers. or by users of fill.s ~. 3s .E
 aThe selection of disposal method for any class of waste TO. solves itself, in the long run, into a search for the economic mini. mum necessary to convert that waste into an acceptable and harm. less product,' observes the report in discussing the methods in use ''In the case of ashes. of course. nc trcatment,-is necessary except the incineration Of rubbish which 1T turn involves the separation ol wastes at some point"
 Burning of rubbish would elim- mate the nuisance due to rats, un. controlled fires, wet combustibies etc, the report observes, and would permit the use of dumps of 'tesi area because of the smaller bulk On the other hand, cost might bs increased because of the increased supervision necessary, the use oi | portable cage-type incinerators and there would also be danger oi fires from sparks and the nuisancs of smoke. .s. ..i The erection of . properly de signed plant is necessary for tns disposal of garbage, The common methods now in s>Ee in this stats | Include incinefatern, piGgeries, Ol | in ono case, a digegtcr or reduction I plant. In each case the coat of op sfatinE the plant muet be oensld'