INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY - King County, Washington

PART I

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY

Chapter 1= Introduction

Chapter 2» History of Sewerage Problem

Chapter 1

INTRODUCTION

Through the medium of newspaper and radio pub-licity and frequently by direct experience, residentsof Seattle and its surrounding communities have be-come acutely aware of the fact that the metropolitanarea is currently faced with serious problems of sew-erage and drainage. In addition to the significanceof these problems from the standpoint of public health,it is now recognized that they involve such mattersas individual safety and comfort, recreational activity,industrial productivity, and the value of land and prop-erty. If not resolved, sewerage and drainage defi-ciencies will become increasingly serious and willemerge sooner or later as a major obstacle to con-tinued growth and development of the entire metro-politan community.

Sewerage and drainage problems are a matter ofconcern not only to the metropolitan area itself but tothe state of Washington and the counties of King, Sno-homish and Kitsap. The state is concerned becauseof its responsibility for the control of water pollution,and because metropolitan Seattle is its most populous,most productive and, economically, its most valuablearea. King and Snohomish counties are concernedbecause they are direct contributors of sewage anddrainage and because they are affected directly by anyadverse conditions stemming from sewage and indus-trial wastes disposal operations in the metropolitanarea. Kitsap county may be said to be a sideline ob-server, the interests of which will be affected detri-mentally by any failure to resolve present problems.But the position of Seattle is unique. Aside from beingthe major producer of sewage and drainage, it liesacross the major drainage outlets of the metropolitanwatershed into Puget Sound and thus is subject to theterminal or cumulative effects of upstream conditions.

IMPORTANCE OF ENVIRONMENTAL WATER

The metropolitan Seattle area enjoys an abundanceof diversified water resources unsurpassed anywhere.Large quantities of high quality fresh water in nearbymountain streams insure a plentiful and excellentsupply for public use. Numerous fresh water lakesprovide outstanding recreational opportunities andfisheries resources. Puget Sound, in addition to beingan important recreational and fisheries resource,provides a protected navigational outlet to the sea andcontains in its bays and estuaries excellent facilitiesfor docking and shipping operations.

Shore lines adjacent to streams and lakes of thearea and to Puget Sound provide excellent sites forhomes and parks, for recreational pursuits, and forindustrial and commercial developments. From theviewpoints, therefore, of the private citizen, of thebusiness and industrial developer, and of the tourist,these waters represent a community asset of inesti-mable value. As a consequence, it is imperative thatthey be protected against degradation resulting frompollution and contamination brought about by dis-charges of industrial wastes and untreated sewage.

NEED FOR SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE SURVEY

Among the many factors contributing to the sewer-age and drainage problems of the metropolitan Seattlearea, both present and future, the most significantare:

Growth of Population

Growth of population in the city of Seattle, and par-ticularly in the surrounding communities is takingplace at a rate such that the number of people residingwithin the metropolitan area can be expected to reachone and one-quarter million by 1980 and to be overtwo million in approximately 70 years. At the lattertime the metropolitan sewerage service area is ex-pected to exceed 500 square miles.

The present trend toward suburban living has ex-tended the problem across political boundaries. Asa result, the responsibility for providing sewerageservice now rests with 41 separate jurisdictions, in-cluding 19 cities and 22 sewerage districts.

Raw Sewage Discharges

Although there are 25 sewage treatment plants inthe metropolitan area, raw sewage is dischargedthrough some 60 outfalls scattered along the shorelines of Duwamish River, Elliott Bay, and PugetSound. Sewage from approximately 425,000 persons,or about 53 per cent of the total population presentlyresiding in the metropolitan area, is discharged with-out treatment into these waters. As might well beexpected, bacteriological analyses of the shore watersindicate that all beaches within the area are subjectto dangerous contamination. It can be expected alsothat continued evidences of raw sewage dischargeswill have an adverse effect on the use of Puget Soundfor boating, fishing and other recreational activities.

METROPOLITAN SEATTLE SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE SURVEY

Raw Sewage Overflows

Due to summer rain storms, overflows of raw sew-age into Lake Washington and Green Lake frequentlyoccur during the recreational season. Studies indi-cate that, under average rainfall conditions, overflowsoccur more than 40 times per summer at each of about30 points of discharge. Following these storms, vir-tually the entire west side of Lake Washington and allof Green Lake are rendered unfit for swimming.

In addition to the lake discharges, 30 other pointsof emergency overflow are scattered along the shoresof Duwamish River, Elliott Bay, Lake Union, the ShipCanal, and Puget Sound. These overflows also dis-charge raw sewage following summer storms.

Lake Washington Pollution

Treated sewage from an estimated 80,000 personsnow enters Lake Washington through direct dischargesfrom ten community sewage treatment plants, andthrough indirect discharges from at least 4,000 privateseptic tanks. Biological and chemical conditions indi-cate that the lake is in the first stage of degradationdue to nutrient enrichment, resulting in part from thedischarge of sewage effluents and overflows. If thissituation is not remedied, the inestimable value of LakeWashington as a recreational and scenic asset is likelyto be greatly reduced, or perhaps even lost completely.

Duwamish River Pollution

Because of the discharge of raw and partially treatedsewage and industrial waste, the Duwamish River isapproaching the limit of its capacity to receive putres-cible material. Tests indicate that the dissolved oxygencontent ofthe river water is reduced at times to theminimum level considered satisfactory for aquatic life.

Suburban Sewerage Problems

About one-third of the total population residing inthe metropolitan area is without public sewer service.To keep pace, therefore, with residential development,6, 000 private septic tanks are being constructed eachyear at a cost of approximately $2 million. Many ofthese installations are doomed to failure. Further-more, gradual seepage from septic tanks is aggravat-ing, and will continue to aggravate the already seriouscondition of nutrient enrichment of Lake Washington.It can be expected also to provoke a similar situationin other lakes within the metropolitan area.

Soil conditions in much of the suburban area arecompletely unsuitable for septic tank disposal. Insituations of this kind, home building is prohibiteduntil public sewers become available.

Combined Sewer Problems

Most of the older areas of Seattle are served bycombined sewers which carry both sanitary sewage

and storm runoff. Because of inadequate provisionfor storm flow capacity, these sewers become over-loaded during periods of intense rainfall. Even attimes of relatively light rainfall, many of them causebasement floodings and discharge sewage into streetsthrough storm water inlets. It is not surprising,therefore, that every heavy rain results in numerousclaims for storm water damage.

Metropolitan Aspects of Sewerage and Drainage

Sewerage and drainage problems of the metropolitanarea are not restricted to individual cities and com-munities. Watershed boundaries, which define stormdrainage areas and also limit sewerage service areas,are not confined to city, district and county lines. Inother words, sewerage and drainage problems of themetropolitan communities are area-wide in scope andsolutions must be formulated accordingly. This inturn implies that the construction and operation oftrunk and interceptor sewers, major pumping stations,and treatment plants should be delegated to a singlearea-wide authority.

OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF SURVEY

Based on the problems outlined above, it is evidentthat there is an urgent need for the development of acomprehensive, long-range plan under which provisionwould be made for the systematic, orderly, economic,and properly integrated construction of necessarysewerage and drainage improvements. Such a plan,of course, calls first for a detailed engineering survey,taking into account all facts pertinent to the sewerageand drainage needs of the entire metropolitan area.

A survey to determine metropolitan needs should beconcerned only with trunk and intercepting sewers,major storm sewers, main pumping stations, andtreatment and disposal works. It should not, on theother hand, be concerned with local sewers, stormdrains, and pumping stations which are not relateddirectly to the development of a long-range metro-politan program. In general, the provision of localsewerage and drainage should be an independent func-tion delegated to and retained in each political entitycontained within the metropolitan area.

Objectives of Survey

An engineering survey should culminate in a detailedreport setting forth in general, nontechnical languagecomplete information concerning every phase of therequired investigation. Such a report would servethroughout the period required for design of the recom-mended facilities and would be invaluable thereafteras a continuing reference.

Stated briefly, the principal objectives of the surveyhere reported are:

INTRODUCTION

1. The development of a long-range sewerage planfor the metropolitan Seattle area, including such trunkand intercepting sewers, pumping stations, sewagetreatment works, and outfall sewers or other methodsof final disposal, as will be required to assure orderlyand economic provision of needed services.

2. The development, insofar as permitted by exist-ing conditions, of a basis of planning major stormdrainage facilities throughout the metropolitan Seattlearea, including such trunk drain lines, culverts, andcombined sewer separation as will be required toprovide for future development in each drainage basin.

3. The integration into the long-range sewerageand drainage plans, to the fullest possible extent, ofall existing facilities found to be serviceable.

4. The protection of the shores and shore watersof Puget Sound and of Lake Washington and other in-land waters, both surface and underground, frompollution, contamination and nuisance caused by dis-charges either of raw sewage, sewage plant effluents,or industrial wastes.

Scope of Survey

To attain the objectives outlined above, the work ofthe survey, as stipulated in the agreement cited later,included but was not limited to the following phases:

1. A review of existing reports and data, includingprevious reports on sewerage and drainage problems,planning reports, topographic surveys and maps, landuse studies, climatological reports and data, andstudies of lakes and estuaries having special referenceto sewage disposal.

2. A study of drainage areas tributary to LakeWashington to determine the nature and degree of theirdevelopment, both present and future. This phasealso included areas tributary to Lake Sammamish,areas draining directly to Puget Sound, and other areashaving natural drainage in the direction of metropolitanSeattle.

3. A study and analysis of population data and anestimate of population distribution and density, bothpresent and future.

4. A study of the geographical characteristics ofthe metropolitan area as they relate to sewerage anddrainage planning, including topography, geology,climate, natural resources, and economic and socialdevelopment.

5. A study of existing sewage collection, treatmentand disposal systems and the preparation of mapsand diagrams showing the locations and functionaldetails of all such systems. This phase was under-taken primarily for the purpose of determining theextent to which existing facilities could be incorpor-ated, either at present or in the future, in a long-range program of sewerage improvements.

6 . An analysis of the quantity and composition of

sewages and industrial wastes now being collected inthe area and a determination of the probable charac-teristics of those likely to be collected in the future.

7. A determination of present and future loadingson sewers, storm drains and treatment works, basedon analyses of sewages and industrial works in thearea and on experience and data secured elsewhere.

8. A study of the rates of storm water inflow andground water infiltration into separate sanitary sew-ers , especially in the Lake City area, with the pur-pose of establishing realistic criteria applicable tothe design of trunk sewers, interceptors, and treat-ment works.

9. A study of the effect of existing sewage disposalpractices on the waters of Puget Sound, DuwamishRiver, and Lake Washington and on other waters inthe metropolitan area.

10. A study of future disposal requirements to pro-tect public health, to maintain receiving water qualityconsistent with its beneficial uses, and to preventnuisance in the vicinity of disposal areas.

11. The development of design criteria and prelimi-nary costs data for the design of sewerage and drain-age facilities.

12. An investigation of problems concerned with theuse of sewers carrying combined flows of storm waterand sanitary sewage and, insofar as permitted byexisting conditions, the development of a realistic,workable plan for storm water separation.

13. The development of all reasonable alternativesewerage and drainage projects and an analysis thereofas to physical and economic feasibility. This phasedealt with such factors as location, area served, popu-lation served, and sewage flow, and the location oftrunk sewers, storm drains, interceptors, pumpingstations and treatment plants.

14. An estimation of costs, both construction andannual, for sewerage and drainage facilities and acomparison of alternative projects.

15. The presentation of recommendations as to themost suitable long-range programs for both sewerageand drainage of the metropolitan area, together withpreliminary plans and descriptions giving essentialfeatures of the proposed projects.

16. The development of a program of stage or in-cremental construction of both sewerage and drainageimprovements.

17. A discussion of the various methods of financingconstruction and operation of the recommended sew-erage and drainage improvements.

AUTHORIZATION OF SURVEY AND REPORT

On August 29, 1956, the engineering firm of Brown. and Caldwell was engaged by the city of Seattle toundertake, in accordance with the foregoing objec-


tives, a comprehensive survey of sewage and drain-age in the metropolitan area. The agreement thennegotiated provides for financial participation by boththe state of Washington, acting through the PollutionControl Commission, and the county of King. It callsalso for completion of the project and submission of areport by March 1, 1958. Separate agreements re-lating to joint participation were subsequently negoti-ated between Brown and Caldwell and the state andcounty. Under all three agreements, payment forthe work is on a time and expense basis, with the totalfee limited to $130,000. Of this total, $90,000 isbeing contributed by the city, $30,000 by the county,and $10,000 by the state.

In the agreement with the city, it is stipulated thatBrown and Caldwell shall prepare and submit 1,000copies of a written report. This report is to presentall information and data developed during the survey,together with descriptions of and estimates of costsfor the recommended improvements.

FIELD AND LABORATORY WORK

Field and laboratory work was concerned primarilywith the following activities:

1. A determination of the quantities of sewage andindustrial waste from all parts of the metropolitanarea. This phase of the work was marked by the use,for the first time, of a radioactive isotope techniquewhich greatly simplified the difficult problem of flowmeasurement in large sewers. Continuous flow rec-ords at selected locations on trunk sewers in the cityof Seattle were observed with the aid of pneumaticrecording equipment developed specifically for thesurvey. Further details of these methods are givenin Chapter 7.

2. A determination of the composition of sewagesand industrial wastes from selected locations in Seattleand from outlying communities in the metropolitanarea. Samples were collected at each location withthe aid of one of two types of automatic samplingequipment. For small sewers and treatment plants,a rotating scoop-type sampler was employed whichpicked up a representative portion of the flow at tenminute intervals. For deep sewers, a new type ofsampler was developed specifically for use during thesurvey. Detailed descriptions of both types are givenin Chapter 7.

Samples collected over 24 hour periods were ana-lyzed by survey personnel in the sanitary engineeringlaboratories of the University of Washington. Seattleengineering department personnel assisted in settingup the equipment for flow measurements and sampling.

3. A study of the waters of Puget Sound to deter-mine current velocity and direction at selected pointsalong the shore, and to determine the effects of ex-

isting sewage disposal practices, particularly in the•vicinity of the point of discharge of the North Trunksewer in Shilshole Bay. For this phase of work, usewas made of a boat and crew furnished through thecourtesy of the U.S. Coast Guard. Chapter 11 des-cribes the results of the Puget Sound studies.

4. A study of the water of Lake Washington and ofother lakes and streams in the area to determine thebiological and chemical conditions of nutrient enrich-ment, and to determine the degree of pollution due todischarge of sewage effluents and raw sewage over-flows. This study was carried out in conjunction withsimilar work being done by the University of Wash-ington, Department of Zoology, under a grant fromthe U.S. Public Health Service. Samples were col-lected by survey personnel and university studentsand were analyzed in the sanitary engineering labor-atories of the university. Although a great deal morestill needs to be known about Lake Washington, suf-ficient information is now available to permit conclu-sions with respect to the effects of sewage effluentdischarges and overflows.

5. A survey of the existing sewerage system withinthe metropolitan area, including trunk sewers, majorpumping plants, treatment works and outfalls, or othermeans of final disposal. Results of this work aresummarized in Chapter 6.

6. A field inspection of the routes of trunk sewersand of the locations of pumping stations, treatmentplants and special structures. Reconnaissance sur-veys were made from the ground, by water, and fromthe air of all such routes and locations. In addition,foundation borings were made at the site proposed forthe West Point treatment plant. Aerial reconnaissanceand photography were performed through the cooper-ation of the U.S. Navy.

7. The collection, through numerous field trips,of information on development of the metropolitanarea. This information served to establish the patternand nature of urban growth, and to determine the logi-cal extent of the future area to be served by the metro-politan facilities.

OFFICE WORK

Office work was concerned with the following princi-pal activities:

1. A careful review of all reports, basic data andgeneral information furnished by the staff of the Seattleengineering department, by other cities and districts,by consulting engineers, and by other agencies andindividuals.

2. An investigation of the entire subject of presentand future population development as to rates, distri-bution, and total numbers.

3. An estimation of sewage flows and treatment

INTRODUCTION

plant loadings based on field quantitative measure-ments and on laboratory analyses of representativesamples.

4. A determination of all necessary present andfuture trunk sewers with respect to the areas to beserved, and their routes, capacities and sizes.

5. An investigation of sewage pumping in terms ofpumping necessity, location, capacity and economy.

6. An estimation and review of all design factors.7. The preparation of preliminary layouts for ad-

ditional main sewers, treatment works and principalappurtenances.

8. The development and assembly of unit costs,and the preparation of necessary construction andtotal annual costs.

9. The preparation of the final report.

INFORMATION AND DATA AVAILABLE TO SURVEY

Existing reports, maps, plans, specifications, andstatistical information relating to the various citiesand districts in the area were furnished by city anddistrict officials. Personnel of the Seattle Depart-ment of Engineering and engineering personnel ofother cities and districts assisted in every way pos-sible. Nevertheless, a great deal of time had to bespent by the survey staff in obtaining from the cityengineering files necessary information concerningthe existing Seattle sewerage system.

Other public agencies within the metropolitan areahave generously made available reports, maps, filesand other data. Particularly helpful material wasfurnished by the Seattle Planning Department, KingCounty Planning Department, Snohomish County Plan-ning Department, Seattle-King County Health Depart-ment, State Pollution Control Commission, and StateDepartment of Health. All consulting engineeringfirms in the area concerned with sewerage graciouslycooperated by releasing information and plans fromtheir files and by furnishing facts based on their knowl-edge of local conditions. Soils engineering firms andmany industrial firms cooperated by releasing theresults of soil and foundation investigations whichhad been performed by and for them in the past.

Information was obtained from a number of federalagencies, particularly the U.S. Geological Survey,

U. S. Coast and Geodetic Survey, U. S. Weather Bureau,U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Engineer Corps, U.S.Navy, and the U.S. Public Health Service. Valuabledata were obtained also from the Department of Ocea-nography, the Bureau of Governmental Research andServices, the Department of Civil Engineering, andthe Department of Zoology, all of the University ofWashington. Other state agencies furnishing infor-mation included the Department of Fisheries, Depart-ment of Game, Department of Employment Security,Highway Department, Census Board, and the Officeof the Secretary of State.

PROGRESS REPORTS

Verbal reports on the progress of the survey weremade from time to time to the sponsoring agenciesas well as to quasi-official, technical and lay groups.Two reports were presented to the Mayor and CityCouncil of Seattle during 1957, the first in Apriland the second in October. Additionally, two r e -ports were made to the Mayor and members of theStreets and Sewers Committee, the first in Novem-ber 1956 and the second in February 1957. A pro-gress report was given also to the State PollutionControl Commission in May 1957. In the same month,a detailed description of the progress being made waspresented to the members of the Metropolitan Prob-lems Committee meeting jointly with officials of com-munities and agencies throughout the metropolitanarea.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The task of assembling and compiling the facts andfigures required for a report of the magnitude herepresented involved the work of many persons. Inaddition to the survey staff, numerous individualscontributed, either directly or indirectly, to the prep-aration of the necessary material.

It is difficult, in retrospect, to recall everyonewho, in some measure, contributed to the survey andreport. We trust, however, that the list of acknowl-edgements contained in the appendix is reasonablycomplete. The help given us by the individuals therelisted is deeply appreciated.

Chapter 2

HISTORY OF SEWERAGE PROBLEM

White settlers began arriving in the area that is nowSeattle only a little over 100 years ago. Requiringlittle in the way of public services, they took waterfrom the nearest convenient sources and disposed ofsewage by primitive means.

As the settlement grew, water sources became con-taminated and nuisances developed. By 1865, thepopulation had reached 300 and the need for publiccontrol had become so imperative that the territoriallegislature incorporated the little community.

A board of public works, created by OrdinanceNumber 4 of the new municipal council, undertookconstruction of the first public sewers in the area.Lacking any semblance of a "system", these earlysewers consisted of wood troughs or boxes, whichdischarged individually at the most convenient point,usually into Elliott Bay and Lake Union. It was notuntil 1875, by which time the population had increasedto about 1,500, that planning and construction of sew-ers were commenced on an organized basis. Bondsfor financing construction were passed the followingyear but, because the validity of bonds voted under aterritorial franchise was questioned, nothing was ac-complished until enabling legislation was enacted bythe United States Congress in 1882.

The first sewer of more or less permanent charac-ter was constructed in 1883. Made of "iron stone",a mixture of clay and iron slag, this sewer was laid inMadison Street from Fifth Avenue to Elliott Bay. Vit-rified clay pipes, 12 inches in diameter, were first laidin 1885 when the population of Seattle had grown to over5,000. By that time, local nuisances had become wide-spread and pollution of near-shore waters, especiallyin Lake Union, had become a serious community prob-lem. Finally, the situation became so serious that thecity council obtained the services of Colonel GeorgeE. Waring, J r . , a sanitary engineer of national re-pute, to design a comprehensive system of sewers.

The Waring Report

Submitted to the city council in March 1889, ColonelWaring's report presented a plan for a comprehensivesystem of separate sewers designed to carry domesticsewage only, with no provision for flow resulting fromrainfall. On this subject the report stated:"The system of sewerage adopted is arranged for theremoval of foul wastes only. That is to say, it is toreceive no rain water from any source whatever.It was found on estimating the sizes needed for carry-

ing roof water that this would add materially to thecost of the work.

"You are so well situated for the removal of surfacewater that it is not worth while to spend public moneyfor increasing the facilities unless possibly here-

, after with reference to certain localities where stormwater may accumulate to an inconvenient or danger-ous degree."An important feature of the sewerage problem, as

established by the Waring report, was the need forthe construction of a tunnel, later known as the LakeUnion tunnel, to prevent the discharge of sewage intoLake Union.

Shortly after receipt of the Waring report, interestin public affairs was distracted from normal channelsby the great fire of 1889, which destroyed a largepart of the city. Preoccupied then with reconstructionof the city, public attention was diverted temporarilyfrom further consideration of the sewerage problem.In the end, the Waring report was rejected, apparentlybecause the proposed sewers were believed to be ofinsufficient capacity.

Renewing its effort to find a solution to the growingproblem, the city council, on November 18, 1889,retained by Benezette Williams, a consulting engineerfrom Chicago, to prepare plans for a comprehensivesewer system. At the time, Williams was workingalso on plans for a water supply system for Seattle.

In 1890, while Williams was preparing his report,Washington was admitted to the Union and the newState Legislature granted a municipal charter to thecity of Seattle. This charter was adopted at an elec-tion held on October 1, 1890.

That the sewerage problem must have been one ofthe first concerns of the newly chartered city is evi-denced by the following statement contained in the1890 annual report of the Honorable Harry White,Mayor of Seattle, to the City Council:"Your attention is called to the question of providingadditional sewerage facilities especially in the vicin-ity of Lake Union. I would recommend that a com-mittee be appointed by the Council. . .and that saidcommittee.. .report. . .whether the sewerage fromthat portion of the city can be disposed of withoutusing Lake Union for the purpose."

The Williams Report

The Williams report was received in August 1891.In contrast to the Waring proposals, Williams recom-


t- ,

• • • +

SEATTLE in 1878t about the time the city's first sewerage system was being planned. Street intersection in foreground is 2ndand Pike Streets. The large building at upper left was the University of Washington located on the present site of the OlympicHotel.

mended a system of sewers to carry both sanitarysewage and storm runoff, thus necessitating pipes andconduits of much larger capacity. Domestic sewageand low storm runoff were to be diverted from theLake Union, Green Lake, and part of the Lake Wash-ington drainage basins by means of three major sys-tems, each discharging into salt water. During storms,surface runoff mixed with sewage would be dischargedto adjacent waterways through a number of overflowand bypass structures located along the principal trunkand intercepting sewer lines.

While the Waring and Williams philosophies were indirect conflict from the standpoint of separate versuscombined sewers, it is interesting to note that theirproposals were in agreement in one significant respect.Both urged construction of the Union Lake tunnel.

Combined Versus Separate Sewers

The decision to use combined instead of separatesewers in Seattle has had, and will continue to have,an important bearing on Seattle's sewerage problemsand the pollution of its surrounding waters. It is de-sirable, therefore, to review the reasons for theWilliams recommendations. These reasons are ofparticular interest because more recent advisers haverecommended separation of the sewer system, at leastinsofar as existing conditions will permit.

Williams pointed out that surface soils are con-stantly soaked to saturation during a considerablepart of the six rainy months. This condition, togetherwith steep surface slopes, results in rapid runoff and

high concentration of storm water in gutters and atstreet intersections. In his report, Williams stated:''In short, the accumulated experience of all populous

cities and towns leaves no chance for being mistakenin the assertion that the underground removal ofstorm water is a necessity in a modern city. Anyattempt to dispense with it is a retrograde move-ment, and one not to be tolerated at the present day.

"If sewage and storm water are not removed togetherby means of a combined system of sewers, under-ground conduits will have to be provided for rainwater, as well as sewers to be used exclusively fororganic waste, thus substituting a double systemfor a single one, and materially increasing the cost.

"Much has been said in advocacy of complete separ-ation of sewage and storm water. . .but neverthelessthe stubborn fact remains that in all cities of largesize, it is considered necessary to remove stormwater by underground conduits, and in nearly allsuch cases it has been found most convenient, andthe cheapest to do it by means of a combined systemof sewers.

"The sanitary plea that is often urged in behalf ofthe separate system. . . cannot properly be held suf-ficient to outweigh the many advantages afforded bythe combined system.

" . . . If a system of sewers is built so small as to beadapted merely to the removal of house sewage, itwill be overcharged in a few years, through stormwater connections, made perhaps without the knowl-edge of the city departments. "


Treatment of sewage for the prevention of water pol-lution was not practiced in 1890, and little or nothingwas known about it at that t ime. Probably neitherWaring nor Williams fully realized that treatmentultimately would be required. Certainly Williamsdid not mention the additional cost which would beentailed should it become necessary to intercept andpump sewage combined with storm runoff, and conveythe combined flow to treatment sites a t some distancefrom the various outfalls.

Williams was aware of the nuisances which werebound to resulMrom the discharge of sewage intonear-shore waters. His report, in the remarks quotedbelow, recognized that construction of a comprehen-sive sewer system would probably result in wide-spread pollution."Of the 28 square miles within the city limits, about

10 square miles drain naturally to the salt waterSound, and 18 square miles to the fresh water lakes,Washington, Union and Green. Of the fresh waterdrainage area, approximately 8 square miles drainto Lake Union and 10 square miles to Lake Wash-ington directly and indirectly.

"It is thus seen that following the natural topographythe sewage from about 64 per cent of the city's pop-ulation would go into fresh bodies of water where itwould stagnate, and as it grew in magnitude wouldbecome offensive in every way. To prevent this asfar as possible, should be one of the main purposesin outlining a sewerage plan.

"As the sewage of the city increases it will becomemore and more of a problem to dispose of it alongthe waterfront without creating a nuisance, and thefewer the points of outfall the more readily can somesystem be adopted to throw the sewage far out in theSound should it become necessary.

" . . . When the quality of sewage shall have becomelarge, this stranding (on the beach) of the sewagemay become objectionable. It is also a questionwhether the Bay itself for a considerable way fromshore, will not become offensive in the course ofyears. This, however, cannot be told with any de-gree of assurance without a full knowledge of thecurrents occasioned by the ebb or flow of the tides. "Time has proven that William's fears over the

possible consequence of discharging sewage alongthe shorelines were well founded. How best toresolve this problem, in view of the large showswhich are experienced during every storm, hasperplexed city officials and engineers for nearlyfifty years .

Nevertheless, under conditions of sanitary engi-neering practice in 1890, Williams arguments wereconvincing and his recommendations were approved.Seattle, therefore, started to construct combinedsewers.

Early Trunk and Intercepting Sewers

Construction of the existing Seattle sewerage systemmay be said to have commenced coincident with thepreparation of the reports by Waring and Williams.By the end of 1891, about 14. 9 miles of sewers hadbeen constructed, ranging from 8 inches to 20 inchesin diameter. The rapidity of the subsequent growthof the sewer system is indicated by the following tab-ulation of the miles of sewers which had been con-structed up to the years indicated:

1891 14.9 miles1900 60.45 miles1908 212.32 miles1924 628.63 miles1930 802.10 miles1940 863.15 miles1950 9&8.09 miles1956 1059.59 miles

Full responsibility for the construction of sewerswas placed in the hands of R. H. Thompson who, ex-cept for a brief period in 1894, served as city engineerfrom 1892 to 1911. Following in general the plans laidout in the Williams report, Thompson directed thedesign and construction of major sewers and sewertunnels which to this da'y comprise the "backbone" ofmost of the system. These projects included the LakeUnion tunnel system, most of the North Trunk sewer,and the Beacon Hill tunnel system and marked the firstimportant steps in the protection of the fresh waterbodies of the area. But beneficial as they were indiverting dry weather flow from Lake Union, GreenLake and parts of the Lake Washington drainage basinto tidal waters, they aggravated conditions along theElliott Bay waterfront and created a new problem inPuget Sound proper.

Concern regarding the discharge of sewage fromnumerous small systems along the Elliott Bay water-front was expressed in the city engineer's report of1901 which stated:"More than six years ago sewage from a large portionof Renton Hill was carried down Twelfth Avenue toLane Street, where it is turned to the west and isdischarged at the foot of Lane Street into the watersof Elliott Bay. . . The sewage cast upon the flats atthe foot of Lane Street becomes extremely offensive,and will soon be the occasion of public uprising un-less some steps are taken to abate the nuisance."Although corrective steps have been taken from time

to time, discharges of raw sewage into near-shoresalt waters have increased steadily and today con-stitute principal problems. Among the most seriousare the discharges from the major systems construc-ted in the early 1900's, namely, the North Trunksewer to the sound in the vicinity of West Point, theLake Union tunnel system to Elliott Bay near Denny


Way, and the Rainier Valley system to the DuwamishRiver at Harbor Island.

While these early and important developments weretaking place in Seattle, events of historical significancewere occurring elsewhere in the area. In Ballard,which was not a part of Seattle until 1907, four largetrunk sewers with outfalls into Salmon Bay were con-structed during 1903 and 1904. Although these sewersstill serve the Ballard district, an interceptor wasconstructed in 1937 and the dry weather flow is nowconveyed to the North Trunk sewer through a siphonlaid along the bottom of Salmon Bay.

In 1910, construction of sewers commenced in thecities of Auburn and Renton. Discharging, respec-tively, into the Green and Cedar rivers, these werethe first of many systems to follow which would dis-charge to the fresh waters of the area at numerousand scattered points. Meanwhile, the principal de-velopments continued to center in Seattle where thesewerage system was being expanded rapidly through-out the city. Much of this expansion consisted of smallsystems with independent discharges.

In 1920, a major intercepting sewer was constructedalong Henderson Street from Forty-Second AvenueSouth to its point of discharge into Lake Washington.This line served the lower Rainier Avenue and EmpireWay areas and, upon its completion, provided thedeveloped sections of Seattle a moderately adequatenetwork of sewers.

Overloaded Sewers

Because of the rapid growth of the city, and theattendant extension of tributary areas served by thevarious combined sewer systems, many trunk sewerssoon became overloaded. As a consequence, numer-ous problems were subsequently encountered and manyopinions, expert and otherwise, were frequently ex-pressed. Here, briefly, are some typical examples:

1. A flow measurement at an overflow manholeon Roanoke Street on January 5, 1914 showed a depthof flow of over two feet, indicating that the entirelength of the main sewer was overloaded from theLake Union tunnel to Roanoke Street.

2. In a report to the city engineer made in 1921,it was stated that, on September 8, 1916, the LakeUnion tunnel backed up and that water flowed fromthe manholes in Roy Street,

3. A. report in 1927, prepared in the office of W. D.Barkhuff, city engineer, listed a large number of in-adequate sewers in the city and called for "immediaterelief either by sewers paralleling the existing sewersor by the construction of a single sewer of the properdimensions."

4. In a letter dated September 27, 1927, A. H.Dimock, who had previously served as city engineer,for 12 years, commented upon a recommendation re-

garding relief of overloaded sewers: "A more real-istic approach now will be to start providing separatestorm sewers."

5. In 1928, W. D. Barkhuff, city engineer, recom-mended "the construction of a separate system ofstorm water sewers to give the necessary relief forpresent and future development. "

6. Dr. Abel Wolnaan, in his report to the CityCouncil in 1948, recommended "The policy should bepromptly adopted.... prohibiting any further extension. . . . of combined sewers. The continuing installationof combined sewers will aggravate the disposal prob-lems. . . .when excessive amounts of storm water,sullied by domestic sewage in combined sewers, willcreate major fiscal problems. "

Numerous other engineers, employed by the cityand in private practice, have expressed themselvesas favoring either complete or partial separation ofthe Seattle sewer system.

The Lake Washington Interceptor System

Although the North Trunk and Bayview tunnel sys-tems were designed to divert the dry weather flowfrom parts of the Lake Washington drainage basin,they did not, initially, serve areas lying along the east-erly slope of the ridge in Seattle which extends alongpractically the entire Lake Washington shoreline.Consequently, a number of small systems was con-structed in those areas, each discharging raw sewageinto the lake. Several large trunks, all with lake dis-charges, were also constructed. Others were addedfrom time to time until there were 30 raw sewageoutfalls to the lake by 1922.

To correct these undesirable conditions, a plan, wasdevised during the term of J. D. Blackwell as cityengineer which called for construction of five pumpingplants and a system of intercepting sewers whichwould divert some of the flow from the Lake Wash-ington basin to salt water. This plan also included anew tunnel under Hanford Street to relieve flooding andbackups, which were occurring frequently in RainierValley because the capacity of the Bayview tunnel wasno longer sufficient to serve the tributary area. Since,however, the estimated cost of $4,200,000 was con-sidered to be too high, an alternative plan was devel-oped by the city engineer. The latter contemplatedthe construction of 16 sewage treatment plants alongthe lake front which, with their connecting sewers,were estimated to cost about $2,500,000.

In reviewing both plans, the State Department ofHealth wrote to the city of Seattle in August 1922,stating among other things:"Accordingly, if it is contemplated to construct acombined storm and septic sewer system, the treat-ment works should b.e adequate to take care of allthe effluent of the sewer, including both septic and

10 METROPOLITAN SEATTLE SEWERAGE AND DRAINAGE SURVEY

storm sewage; but if it is preferred to build twoseparate systems, one for the storm water and onefor the septic sewage, the storm water will not haveto be treated.

"This Department cannot permit any increase in thepollution of Lake Washington which affords the onlypossible water supply for certain settlements on itsshore. . ."

Despite what appears to have been a valid stand onthe part of the Department of Health, permission wasgranted subsequently for the construction of plantsto treat combined sewage. Three such plants, com-prising Imhoff tanks only, were constructed in 1924,one each at Perry Street, Alaska Street, and Massa-chusetts Avenue.

A resolution of the King County Board of Health,dated October 20, 1925, stated that from and afterNovember 1, 1925 any sewage discharged into LakeWashington must be so purified that it will not containthe germs of human diseases, and will conform withthe United States Public Health Service bacteriologicalstandard for drinking water. Meanwhile, however,the State Department of Health had, in effect, with-drawn from its earlier stand by approving plans forsewage treatment plants which were incapable of meet-ing the demanded standard.

By Resolution Number 2005 of October 1925, theKing County Board of Commissioners condemned theuse of Lake Washington for the disposal of sewage.This resolution also required that any effluent dis-charged into the lake should meet the standards ofthe United States Public Health Service for drinkingwater.

In 1925, strong complaints about nuisances arisingfrom the plants already constructed were expressedby residents of nearby areas. Finally, conditionsbecame so offensive that suit was brought to enjointheir operation. With public sentiment turned againstthese plants, a bond issue of $2,125,000 was votedon March 6, 1926 for the construction of interceptingsewers and pumping stations to divert sewage fromthe lake, apparently along the lines first recommendedby Blackwell.

While the above controversy was in progress, thecity council employed A. H. Dimock to develop a planfor abating pollution of Lake Washington. A state-ment contained in his report of May 17, 1926 bearsrepeating in the light of subsequent developments:"The population of Seattle will soon overflow its pres-ent boundaries both north and south. It will jumpacross the lake and its eastern shores will becomeurban property. And, coincident with the growth ofSeattle, there will be a corresponding growth inpopulation and industries throughout the entire habi-table watershed. The area to the north and north-east, together with other tracts will become sub-

urban property. This area will comfortably house,without crowding, some 2 or 3 millions of people.This will be a long time ahead, but it is manifestthat an increasing population will deliver a constantlyincreasing amount of contamination to the lake.

"It is my opinion, therefore, that sewage even aftertreatment should not be disposed of in the watersof Lake Washington within the limits of the city ofSeattle, but should be removed completely..."

Estimated to cost $3, 000,000, the plan recom-mended by Dimock called for an intercepting sewersystem along the shoreline of Lake Washington fromtwelve pumping stations, and for a tunnel throughBeacon Hill under Hanford Street to replace the Bay-view tunnel. Interceptors were to be constructed inthree separate sections: (1) a northerly section withpumping stations to lift sewage into the North Trunksystem; (2) a central section with pumps to lift theflow into the Hanford Tunnel system; and (3) a south-erly section with pumps to lift flow to a new HendersonStreet system which would convey it to the south end ofBeacon Hill where construction of a treatment plantwas contemplated. Storm water overflows were to beprovided at intervals along the interceptor system andthe existing Henderson Street intercepting sewer wasto become an overflow outfall. After considerable con-troversy over the relative merits of the various plansthat had been proposed, the Dimock plan was adoptedand has since been followed to a substantial degree.

The principle of eliminating and preventing the dis-charge of sewage into Lake Washington had now be-come so well established that by 1936 all outfalls tothe lake had been intercepted. Storm overflows, how-ever, could not be avoided and continue to occur atsome 30 scattered points along the lake, even duringrelatively light rainfalls.

Final Stages in Development of Existing Sewerage System

At the time the south Lake Washington interceptingsewer system was being planned, it had become ap-parent that an interceptor was needed also to protectthe waters of Duwamish River. Under the Dimockplan, it was contemplated that dry weather flow fromthe new Henderson Street system would ultimatelybe treated at a plant south of Beacon Hill. In view,however, of the concurrent need for an interceptoralong the Duwamish, a plan was devised whereby theHenderson Street sewer would be routed around thesouth end of Beacon Hill to a junction with the pro-posed Duwamish interceptor. The latter would thenconvey sewage along East Marginal Way to a treatmentplant at Diagonal Avenue. This change was approvedand construction of the system was completed about1940.

Design of the East Marginal Way interceptor wasbased on serving the Henderson Street system only

HISTORY OF SEWERAGE PROBLEM 11

until its full capacity would be required by develop-ments along the Duwamish. It that event, the planwas to construct the proposed treatment plant southof Beacon Hill.

Sewerage construction slackened during World WarII, being confined principally to the provision of facil-ities needed to serve war housing areas. In 1945, amajor program of sewer system extensions was re-commended by the office of the city engineer. In-volving construction over the following ten years and abond issue of $3,000,000, this program was approvedby the voters at a general election.

As the volume of raw sewage being discharged andthe number of points of discharge increased, stateand local health authorities, the Pollution ControlCommission, and other state and local agencies in-terested in water resources expressed increasingconcern. Numerous surveys of conditions in the wastereceiving waters were conducted, out of which camewarnings regarding the growing menace to the publichealth and the urgent need for corrective action. Forinstance, a letter from the State Department of PublicHealth, dated July 12, 1945 stated in part:"In the spring of 1941 and again in 1944 extensivebacteriological investigations were made of thewaters at Alki and Golden Gardens bathing beaches.These studies were made by the State and City ofSeattle Health Departments. Conclusions of bothinvestigations were that the beaches were seriouslypolluted. The outfall sewers mainly responsible forthese conditions were the Ballard and North Trunkat Golden Gardens; and Jersey Street, ArkansasStreet, and Fifty-Third Avenue, southwest at Alki.

"These bacteriological studies revealed coliformbacteria concentrations as high as 10, 000 per 100c.c. and average values of over 1, 000 per 100 c.c.Although no national standard has been adopted es-tablishing the maximum limit of quality of water inwhich it is safe to swim, it is generally indicatedby the several standards in use that 50 coliformorganisms per 100 c.c. is desirable, but in a fewinstances, upper limits of 1,000 per 100 c.c. havebeen set to permit swimming when other quality ofwater was unavailable. Therefore, it is indicatedthat the public bathing at Alki and Golden Gardensbathing beaches have been made unsatisfactory bythe discharge of city of Seattle sewage.

"While only two established city bathing beaches havebeen discussed, all the salt water bathing beacheswithin the city limits of Seattle must also be con-sidered, on the basis of their location with refer-ence to city sewer outfalls, as unsatisfactory forbathing purposes.

"Other factors of concern are: There are continualcomplaints arising from floating solids, scum andslick throughout all of Elliott Bay and extensive

stretches of the Sound, depending on tide conditions.Also, preliminary studies of the Duwamish Water-way reveal that at times the dissolved oxygen isdepleted to such an extent that fish life cannot exist.This situation is attributable in part to the city ofSeattle sewer outfalls into these waters."

The Wolman ReportManifestly unsatisfactory sewerage conditions and

a lack of unanimity in proposals for their solutionled the city council, in 1947, to authorize the cityengineer to engage expert advice. The services ofDr. Abel Wolman, Professor of Sanitary Engineer-ing at Johns Hopkins University and a widely recog-nized authority on sanitary engineering matters, werethen obtained.

Dr. Wolman submitted his report on September 25,1948. A condensation of his recommendations follows:"The capacity of the North Trunk sewer should be

increased to carry three times the dry weather flow,without overflows, and its outlet should be extendedinto a depth not less than 75 feet. All sewage, be-fore discharge into the Sound, should be subjectedto fine comminution. Whether grease or solidsshould be removed should wait on results with com-minution. Land should be purchased for the instal-lation of comminution facilities and plain settling.

"All sewers discharging into Elliott Bay should beextended into deeper water.

"All sewers into Puget Sound at the south of AlkiBeach should be extended into at least 35 feet ofwater. For the time being comminution is not recom-mended for these areas.

"The policy should be promptly adopted of prohibitingany further extension of combined sewers.

"An industrial waste survey must be instituted andmaintained.

"Vigilant administrative checking should be conductedto detect on-shore pollution as a result of breaks inoutfalls, over-balancing of assimilative capacities,and other indices of good or bad performance.

"A master plan for progressive sewer extension andfor controlled sewage disposal should be developedfor Seattle and those environs, outside the city limits,which would normally empty into the same surfacewaters."The Wolman report was approved in a letter from

the city engineer to the city council on November 17,1948. This letter stated: "This department is inhearty accord with Dr. Wolman's findings. This de-partment recommends: That Dr. Wolman's reportbe adopted as the future policy governing our sewagedisposal."

Approval was expressed also by the Director of theState Department of Public Health who, in a letteraddressed to the city council on December 20, 1948,


stated: "We see no valid technical reasons, publichealth, engineering or otherwise, why these recom-mendations should not be acceptable to all concerned. "

In November 1948, a brochure was published by theState Pollution Control Commission in which the Wol-man report was severely criticized. The following quo-tations are indicative of the tenor of the publication:"It was the understanding of the Pollution Control

Commission that the purpose of the Wolman Reportwas to provide the city of Seattle with a basis forfuture planning for sewage and industrial waste' col-lection, treatment and disposal, and to furnish de-tailed information as to methods of accomplishment.The report does not give any of the expected details.The basis for future planning seems to hinge on theinterpretation of the recommendations. Some firstinterpretations have appeared in the newspapers tothe effect that Seattle will never need to providesewage treatment facilities. Since this is a farreaching conclusion and affects not only Seattle butall of the salt water areas in the state, it appearsadvisable to consider all of Wolman's recommenda-tions and conclusions and not only those which appearto recommend no treatment.

"It will be the requirement of the Pollution Control Commissionthat the minimum acceptable degree of treatment for the sew-age and industrial wastes of the city of Seattle will be primarytreatment."

Public officials, civic groups and the citizenry weredisturbed and confused by the conflict of opinions andrecommendations. Some urged the appointment of aboard of engineers to advise the city council on a sol-ution.

In an effort to resolve differences and to provide abasis for action, the city engineer commenced an in-vestigation of overload, overflow and pollution prob-lems and the development of a long term program ofimprovements. At the same time, the Pollution Con-trol Commission undertook investigations to evaluatethe extent and effect of pollution and nuisances in PugetSound.

The Sylvester Report

In 1949, the Pollution Control Commission employedProfessor R. O. Sylvester and associates of the De-partment of Civil Engineering, University of Wash-ington, to conduct a comprehensive survey of pollutionconditions in Puget Sound and its tributaries. Amongother things, the report on this survey discusses (1)the various beneficial uses of the waters of the Sound,Elliott Bay, Shilshole Bay, the Ship Canal and theGreen-Duwamish River; (2) the various points wherewastes were being discharged into these waters; (3)the conditions found as they relate to the beneficialuses; and (4) the suitability of possible sites for wastedisposal.

Details as to the conditions in the receiving waters,as described by Silvester, will be set forth elsewherein this report. As a matter, however, of historicalinterest, it is pertinent here to include the followingsummary of some of the more important findings:" 1 . The biochemical conditions of the Lake Wash-

ington Ship Canal system is not satisfactory."2. All of the bathing beaches surveyed at times

show sewage pollution (presence of coliform organ-isms) to be in excess of the standard established bythe State Pollution Control Commission and the StateDepartment of Public Health.

"3. The following beaches would not be recommendedfor bathing. . . due to either high coliform counts orthe observed presence of sewage materials in thebeach area: Carkeek Park. . . , Ballard Beach, WestPoint Beach, Magnolia Bluff in the vicinity of Thirty-Second Avenue West, the major portion of Alki Beach,the major portion of the entire beach from AlkiPoint south to the city limits, and the beach at Sal-mon Creek.

"4. The Green-Duwamish River is receiving heavydischarges of polluting materials from Auburn northto its confluence with Elliott Bay. The bacterio-logical condition is very poor in the river stretchpast the city of Kent. In the Duwamish Waterwaythe dissolved oxygen depletion. . . is particularlysevere during. . .August and September.

"5. In spite of the extension of eight Seattle outfalls,the conditions of beach pollution are not satisfac-tory. "

Recent Reports of the City Engineer

One of the most urgent problems pointed up by theWolman and Sylvester reports was the pollution ofWest Seattle recreational beaches. In 1948, follow-ing refusal of the Pollution Control Commission togrant permission for the construction of a storm wateroverflow device in West Seattle, the city agreed toproceed with planning for an interceptor system and asewage treatment plant which would eliminate the dis-charge of raw sewage from numerous independentsystems. Three years later, in 1951, the city engi-neer presented a predesign report for this project.

In preparing the predesign report, careful consider-ation was given to the Wolman and Sylvester reportsand to tentative agreements reached with the StatePollution Control Commission. Based on these andother pertinent studies, it was recommended that anarea of 3,843 acres be served by two interceptorswith a total length of about five miles, by seven pump-ing stations, and by a primary type treatment plantto be constructed at Alki Point. Raw sludge removedin sedimentation tanks at the treatment plant was tobe mixed with salt water and pumped at a slow ratethrough an outfall separate from the effluent outfall.


Under this plan, sludge was to be pumped into a depthof 100 feet of water at low tide and at times of favor-able current conditions in the sound. Disposal ofsludge in this manner was considered to be experi-mental and was to be tried for the purpose of deter-mining the validity of the Wolman recommendationsfor deep-water assimilation of raw sewage. As mat-ters turned out, the proposal ended in controversy andconstruction of the West Seattle system was delayed.

In 1952, the city engineer issued a report entitled"Planning and Progress, Seattle City-Wide SewageDisposal Problem". This report points out that "Sub-sequent to 1949, and with the aid of 1946 sewer bondfunds, an intensive sewer rehabilitation program has'been undertaken by the Engineering Department toovercome the decline in progressive sewer planningfor the city that set in with the depression of the 1930'sand reached its lowest point during the war period(1941-1945). To overcome the recession period, andto modernize the system, the spending of approxi-mately $25,000,000 will be necessary to create a net-work of sewers to serve the sanitary requirementsof Seattle's growing population. "

Information is presented regarding results of sew-age characteristic and pollution surveys, studies ofoverflows into Lake Washington, and studies of sewercapacities. On the subject of sewer capacity, it issaid:"These studies have revealed some startling factsthat tend to account for failures in the past, and arenow the basis for not allowing sewer permits to beissued for connection to systems already overloaded.This policy in the past has piled trouble onto exist-ing trouble, when new relief sewers should havebeen constructed. The results of this survey willhelp to reduce claims against the city for damagesfrom sewer backups into basements and save main-tenance funds from being wasted on temporary re-pairs to undersized sewers."A further effort to initiate necessary action came

in 1954 with the holding of an election to authorizeissuance of $5,000,000 in general obligation bondsfor financing construction of sewerage additions andimprovements. This program, however, failed toreceive voter approval.

With reference to new construction, the 1952 reportsummarizes a proposed program as follows:"The program, which is planned for progressive con-struction stages over a 10-year period, will involvethe construction of 29 pumping plants with their as-sociated force mains, to provide new low level,shoreline sewer interception to existing higher sew-ers, approximately 8 miles of new interceptors andreplacement sewers to concentrate existing sewersin conformance with this plan, and a minimum offour sewage treatment plants. "

Three new treatment plants were to be constructed,one each at Alki Point, Fort Lawton and West DennyWay. In addition, the existing Diagonal Avenue plantwas to be enlarged.

The 1956 Bond and Service Charge Election

In 1955, the city council passed an ordinance whichprovided for extensive improvements and additions tothe sewerage system and the issuance of revenue bondsin the amount of $6,250, 000. Another ordinance pro-vided for a sewer service charge, setting a fixed feeof $1.00 per month for a single family residence anda fee for larger contributors based on water use.These actions were approved by the voters at an elec-tion held on March 13, 1956. As a result, the servicecharge is now in effect and the proposed improvementsand additions are in various stages of design and con-struction. , Among these are:

1. Construction of the West Seattle interceptorsystem and sewage treatment plant. This programinvolves an intercepting sewer with sufficient capa-city to limit the number of overflows to twelve persummer. The sewage treatment plant, employingprimary sedimentation and separate sludge digestion,is being constructed at Alki Point as originally pro-posed.

2. Construction of an interceptor to eliminate rawsewage discharges in the vicinity of Golden Gardens.

3. Enlargement of the Lake City Sewage Treatmentplant, and improvements to other systems located inthe area between Eighty-Fifth Street and One Hundredand Forty-Fifth Street, which was annexed to the cityin 1954.

Growth and Problems of the Suburbs

Engineering reports dealing with Seattle's sewer-age problem have given increasing attention to therelationship between the problems of the city andthose of the outlying areas. Between 1890 and thebeginning of World War II, eight communities were in-corporated within what is now the metropolitan Seattlearea and much of the unincorporated fringe area sur-rounding the city became heavily populated. Duringthe war, a sharp growth in population occurred andhas since continued.

As is the case in most of the major population cen-ters in the United States, recent heavy growth hasbeen coupled with a desire on the part of people tolive in the suburbs. In consequence of that trend,large areas to the north and south of Seattle, and eastacross Lake Washington, have become heavily devel-oped. Since the war, ten cities have been incorpor-ated within a 15 mile radius of downtown Seattle andthe unincorporated area within this radius has becomeurbanized to such an extent that the demand for publicsewerage service has brought about the formation of


22 sewerage districts. As a result, 26 independentsewerage systems and as many sewage treatmentplants now operate within the metropolitan Seattlearea. Yet, nearly a third of the population is withoutpublic sewerage service. Furthermore, because ofunfavorable soil conditions, there are frequent in-stances in unsewered areas when household wastesflow over the ground surface and along street guttersor stagnate in pools.

Problems of the unsewered areas are discussed ina report published in 1952 by the Pollution ControlCommission entitled, "The Sewage Disposal Problemin the Seattle Metropolitan Area". This report statesin part:"The movement of people from cities to suburbanareas has created a multitude of problems. Includedamong these is the difficult one of providing ade-quate sewer systems and sewage treatment plants.In the initial stages of the development of suburbanareas, septic tanks and drain fields may solve theinitial household problems. As the areas developfurther, health and sanitation problems are createdand, eventually, community sewerage systems be-come a vital necessity. Such is the condition inmuch of the Seattle metropolitan area.

" . . . The hodge-podge development of sewerage facili-ties in the suburban Seattle area during the past dec-ade has been a matter of concern to all interested inor affected by sewage collection and disposal. Sewerdistricts have been and are being formed to includeonly that immediate area, no matter how irregularin patterns, needing and desiring sewers at themoment... Little regard has been given to the near-by sewer districts or intervening areas when a newdistrict is established. Construction of seweragefacilities in this fashion is expensive, as many smalltreatment plants and trunk sewers will have to beabandoned eventually in favor of other units designedfor the entire drainage basin or basins."On the same subject, a report issued in 1956 by the

Bureau of Governmental Research and Services at theUniversity of Washington, entitled "Government in theMetropolitan Seattle Area" states in part:"A geographic concentration of population carrieswith it a need for basic services... The current sig-nificant movement to the surrounding suburban un-incorporated areas and small incorporated munici-palities produces a large number of communitieswhich do not have the governmental machinery toprovide the basic services necessary in urban areas.Consequently, the residents of the unincorporatedareas form special districts to obtain the necessaryurban services. Each district is formed separatelyunder its own state laws and has its own budget.The result is layers of government.. .each perform-ing certain specific services to the residents of its

particular area. This jig saw, patch-work patternhas been appropriately called 'fractionated1 govern-ment. . . From an overall view, the difficulties ex-perienced by the present small, scattered sewerdistricts in attempting to solve the problems of ade-quate sewage facilities are:

"(1) Small districts are unable to cope with the sew-age problem. Eighty per cent of the present dis-tricts have an area less than two square miles.Generally, a sewer district is formed only whenthere is an acute sewage problem, and then only,the immediate area is considered in solving theproblem. When formed inland, the district is facedwith the next-to-impossible task of financing longoutfall lines for the disposal of sewage.

"(2) Future planning in sewer system designed bysmaj.1 districts for the Lake Washington drainagebasin is very difficult, if not impossible. The bound-aries of sewer districts are not drawn according totopography to create a unit capable of economicaland efficient operation. In King County, there are60 sewer district commissioners and 139 city coun-cilmen concerned with sewerage problems. Eachgovernmental unit has its engineers and legal ad-visers. Coordination of plans with adjacent unitsis extremely difficult; planning for the entire areais virtually impossible.

"(3) Contractors building large housing developmentswould often like to install a central sewer system,but do not, as they have no information on how theirsystem might be coordinated with the surroundingareas' future sewerage development. The abandon-ment of many of the small sewage treatment sys-tems that have been built by contractors now appearsto be imminent if they do not fit into the comprehen-sive plan of trunk sewers and treatment plants beingdeveloped for the area as a whole.

"(4) Treatment plant and outfall sewer sites becomeincreasingly difficult and more expensive to obtainas the areas increase in development.

"(5) Furthermore, there is at present no legal methodfor the 73 square miles in Snohomish County to co-operate with the development of sewage facilitiesto prevent the deterioration of the lake, even if thearea were to form a sewer district."The difficulties discussed above were underscored

in 1956 when the Bellevue Sewer District proposed aprogram for removing sewage and sewage effluentfrom Lake Washington by contracting with other sewerdistricts and jointly financing a trunk sewer to servethe communities on the east side of the lake. Esti-mated to cost between 2. 5 and 3 million dollars, thisprogram called for the construction of an interceptingsewer from Houghton to Renton, with the treatmentplant discharging its effluent to the Duwamish River.In the initial stage, service was to be provided for the


Bellevue Sewer District, Three Points Annexation,Enatai and Beaux Arts Annexation, Eastgate, Hough-ton, Mercer Island Sewer District, East MercerSewer District as well as the new Safeway IndustrialCenter-and the proposed Overlake Commercial De-velopment. In later stages, facilities were to beconstructed whereby it would be possible eventually toserve the entire Lake Washington - Lake Sammamisharea.

At about the same time as the east side project wasproposed, the State Department of Health and the StatePollution Control Commission adopted similar state-ments of policy with respect to the discharge of sew-age into Lake Washington. Plans for the interceptingsewer apparently met all requirements set down bythese authorities.

On August 8, 1956, before the Bellevue plan couldbe consummated, the Lake Hills Sewer District pro-posed an alternative plan involving the construc-tion of a 24-inch effluent line under Lake Washingtonto discharge ultimately into tide water in ShilsholeBay. Under this plan, the Lake Hills Sewer Dis-trict was to build a treatment plant at Yarrow Bayand the Bellevue District was to deliver its sewagethereto under a contractual arrangement. Construc-tion was to be undertaken by such a time as 6, 000properties were under contract to utilize the pro-posed facility. This project, however, has fallenby the wayside because the several agencies involvedtherein have been unable to reach a mutually satis-factory agreement.

Limitations on Discharge of Sewage into Lake Washington

Coincident with urbanization of the area surround-ing Lake Washington, several sewage treatment plantswere constructed with the outfalls into the lake. Tosafeguard domestic water supplies being taken fromthe lake, the State Department of Public Health andthe Pollution Control Commission adopted regulationsrequiring that all treatment plants discharging theretomust provide facilities for secondary treatment andthorough disinfection. While not entirely satisfactoryfrom a domestic water supply standpoint, it was be-lieved that the degree of sewage treatment thus at-tained would safeguard the recreational and aestheticvalues of the lake.

Recent experiences in similar situations in otherparts of the country have focused attention on the factthat the nutrient substances contained in sewage andsewage effluents can cause algal and other biologicalactivities of nuisance proportions in waste receivingwaters. Reports of investigations by the PollutionControl Commission and by Dr. W. T. Edmundsonand associates of the University of Washington haveindicated that increased biological activity is presentlytaking place in Lake Washington. As a result, heavy

emphasis has been placed on the need for removal ofsewage and sewage effluent discharges from the LakeWashington drainage basin.

As part of the abatement effort, the Pollution Con-trol Commission, in 1956, established a policy aimedat progressive correction of the discharge condition.Attendant publicity regarding this and the threateneddeterioration of Lake Washington, coupled with theinability of independent agencies to unite on an effec-tive program, has impressed upon public officials andresidents of the metropolitan Seattle area the needboth for comprehensive sewerage planning and for acentral sewerage authority.

Central Sewerage Authority

Creation of a central sewerage authority has beenadvocated from time to time for many years. In 1934,E. French Chase, former sewerage maintenance engi-neer of the city of Seattle, stated in a public address,"Since 1915. . . I have advocated the formation of ametropolitan sewer district to include the entire areaaround Lake Washington. " In a report of May 17,1926, previously cited, A. H. Dimock stated that acentral sewerage authority was needed in the Seattlearea. To that end, he commented in part as follows:"It is clear that the problem is far larger than Seattlealone can solve. It outruns our authority but notour interest. . .Whatever may be reasonable andnecessary to preserve the purity of the lake shouldbe done through the watershed as well.

"There is at present no provision for a central auth-ority to deal with the problems arising from thesanitation of a single watershed. . . It is quite evidentthat a divided authority. .. is incapable of formulatingand carrying out a unified program which requiresscientific study, engineering, skill, and sound financ-ing."In the 1948 publication of the State Pollution Control

Commission commenting on the Wolman report, thefollowing statement appears:"There is urgent need for the establishment of a com-petent utility organization within the city of Seattlewhose sole purpose is the administration of thesewerage problem.. . It is expected that this utilityorganization might later be expanded to include sur-rounding territory forming a metropolitan sewerarea."

State, city, county and sewer district officials,chambers of commerce, the Municipal League, andother civic organizations have expressed themselvesas favoring some form of centralized sewerage auth-ority. Early in 1956, former Governor Langlie ap-pointed a committee to consider and to assist in thedevelopment of a solution to the metropolitan sewer-age problem. Concurrently, the mayor of Seattle,and the commissioners of King County appointed a


metropolitan problems committee to consider area-wide problems and to make recommendations for theirsolution. In so doing, the sewerage situation was citedas a principal reason for the appointment of the com-mittee. With the support of the Board of Commis-sioners of King County, the committee was laterexpanded to include representatives of the entiremetropolitan area.

Community pressure, together with efforts of in-terested agencies and the appointed committees, cul-minated in the passage, by the 1957 State Legislature,

of an enabling act providing for the formation of Met-ropolitan Municipal Corporations. Under this act,such corporations are empowered to plan, finance andadminister certain services, including sewerage, ona metropolitan basis.

As a final note in recounting the history of the sew-erage problem, it should be recognized that the assis-tance and support of the appointed committees playedan important part also in the decision of the state,county and city of Seattle to finance jointly the conductof the survey here reported.

Documents

INTRODUCTION AND HISTORY - King County, Washington