Waste Stabilization Lagoons


 WASTE
 STABILIZATION
 LAGOONS
              Proceedings of a Symposium
               at Kansas City, Missouri
                  August 1-5, 1960
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
         Public Health Service

-------

-------
WASTE
STABILIZATION
LAGOONS
                 A Review of Research and Experience

                 in Design, Construction, Operation

                 and Maintenance
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION, AND WELFARE
               Public Health Service
       Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control
               Washington 25, D.C.

-------
The Symposium was arranged and conducted
by the Public Health Service at the
request of-
Missouri Basin Engineering Health Council
This publication of the symposium proceedings
was prepared by the staff of the Division of
Water Supply and Pollution Control, Region VI,
Public Health Service, U.S. Department of
Health, Education, and Welfare, Kansas City, Mo.
         Public Health Service Publication No. 872
                     August 1961
       For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                 Washington 25, D. C.  Price $1.25

-------
                               This Symposium

                            was Sponsored by the


             MISSOURI BASIN ENGINEERING HEALTH COUNCIL

                      Albert W. Happy, Jr., Chairman
COLORADO
   William N. Gahr, Director
   Division of Sanitation
   State Department of Public
      Health

IOWA
   Paul J.  Houser, Director
   Division of Public Health
      Engineering
   State Department of Health

KANSAS
   Dwight F. Metzler, Director
   Division of Sanitation
   State Board of Health

MINNESOTA

   Frank L. Woodward,  Director
   Division of Environmental
      Sanitation
   State Department of Health

MISSOURI
   Albert W. Happy, Jr. , Director
   Section of Consultant Services
   Division of Health
MONTANA
   C.  W.  Brinck,  Director
   Division of Environmental
     Sanitation
   State Board of Health

NEBRASKA
   T.  A. Filipi, Director
   Division of Sanitation
   State Department of Health
NORTH DAKOTA

   W. Van Heuvelen
   Executive Officer
   State Department of Health

SOUTH DAKOTA

   Charles E. Carl, Director
   Division of Sanitary Engineering
   State Department of Health

WYOMING

   Arthur E.  Williamson, Director
   Division of Environmental
     Sanitation
   State Department of Public Health
                                      111

-------

-------
                                   CONTENTS

                                                                              Page

MISSOURI BASIN ENGINEERING COUNCIL	    i11

FOREWORD	...oo	   vii

WELCOME .		...     1
            Lewis H. Hoyle, M. D.

HISTORY OF RAW SEWAGE LAGOONS IN THE  MIDWEST	     2
            Jerome H.  Svore

HISTORY OF OXIDATION PONDS IN THE  SOUTHWEST	„.........     7
            David F. Smallhorst

LAGOON RESEARCH PROJECT OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE AT
    FAYETTE, MiSSOURI	    15
            Herbert C. Clare

RESEARCH AND INSTALLATION EXPERIENCES IN CALIFORNIA	    33
            William J.  Oswald

VIRGINIA'S EXPERIMENTAL INSTALLATION	    41
            C. E. Cooley and R. R. Jennings

SEWAGE LAGOONS IN AUSTRALIA	    53
            C. D. Parker

ECONOMICS OF WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOONS IN REGION VI	 .    57
            Herbert C. Clare and Daniel J.  Weiner

USE OF STABILIZATION PONDS IN THE UNITED STATES	    68
            W.  W. Towne and  W.  B. Horning, III

MISSOURI BASIN CRITERIA		.		    75
            Glen J. Hopkins

LAGOON TREATMENT OF MEAT PACKING PLANT WASTES		    8Z
            F. W.  Sollo

LAGOON DEVELOPMENT AND ACCEPTANCE  IN MISSISSIPPI		    89
            J. E. Johnston

EXPERIENCES IN CANADA	    95
            H. L. Hogge

SEWAGE LAGOONS AND MOSQUITO PROBLEMS	  101
            Leslie D. Beadle

LAGOON DISPOSAL OF  LIVESTOCK WASTES	  105
            Ralph L. Ricketts

-------
OPERATING EXPERIENCES IN THE TEN MISSOURI BASIN STATES:

        North Dakota 	„..„„...	    109
            W.  Van Heuvelen

        Montana	„	. „	„	    112
            Claiborne W. Brinck

        Minnesota	„	    116
            Harvey  G.  Rogers

        South Dakota	„	    118
            Donald C.  Kalda

        Iowa	„	    133
            R.  J. Schliekelman

        Kansas	.	„...„	.	    136
            Russell Gulp

        Missouri. . . .	.	    140
            Jack K. Smith

        Nebraska	„	    144
            T.  A. Filipi

        Colorado	    147
            Ronald C.  McLaughlin

        Wyoming	
            David Green

ARCTIC SEWAGE LAGOONS		    155
            Charles F. Walters

IMPROMPTU REMARKS BY JOE WILLIAMSON,  JR.	    159

CRITIQUE  .			    161
            C.  H. Atkins

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF  WASTE STABILIZATION LAGOONS	    165

-------
                               FOREWORD

Use of waste stabilization lagoons for treating raw sewage and certain in-
dustrial wastes has become very popular in the Missouri Basin States.
Since early 1957, the Public Health Service, in cooperation with the City
of Fayette and the Division of Health of Missouri (and subsequently,  the
Missouri Water Pollution Board) has operated a research installation at
Fayette, Missouri.  In 1959, the Missouri Basin Engineering Health Coun-
cil,  (the Chief Sanitary Engineers of each of the 10 Missouri Basin States)
documented the design,  construction and operating practices generally
used for the several hundred installations then existing in the Missouri
Basin.

Recognizing the widespread and popular interest in this economical method
of waste disposal, the Missouri Basin  Engineering Health Council requested
that Public Health Service Region VI plan and conduct a symposium on waste
stabilization lagoons under sponsorship of the Council.

Capitalizing upon the central location of the lower Missouri River Basin, the
numerous  installations  in  the Kansas  City metropolitan area available for
inspection and observation, the Fayette research facility, and the full coop-
eration of the  official health and water  pollution control agencies  of the 10
Basin States,  the symposium was designed as an intensive review of re-
search and experiences  in the design,  construction, operation and mainte-
nance of waste stabilization lagoons.

Registration of 330 persons, from 32 States and 7 foreign countries, dem-
onstrates the widespread interest in this subject. It was indeed a pleasure
for Public Health Service Region VI to arrange and conduct the symposium,
and we gratefully acknowledge the full  cooperation of the Basin States and
the Robert A.  Taft Sanitary Engineering Center.  Appreciation is  also ex-
pressed to the  program participants, all serving without compensation of any
kind, who in the final analysis are truly responsible for the success of the
symposium.

It is hoped that the Proceedings of the  Symposium will be helpful to the many
persons interested in the application of waste stabilization lagoons for treat-
ment of sewage or industrial wastes.
                                           GLEN J. HOPKINS
                                           Regional Engineer
                                           Public Health Service Region VI
                                  vii

-------

-------
                                      WELCOME

                                Lewis H. Hoyle,  M. D. *
  It is a real pleasure for me to welcome
you this morning and to  "kick off" the first
Symposium ever devoted to sewage  lagoons.
A pleasure for several reasons:

  First, this is a symposium sponsored by
the State Sanitary Engineers of the  10 States
of the Missouri River Basin and conducted
by the Public Health Service at the  request
of the 10 States.. This is a fine  example of a
close working relationship of the State and
Federal agencies.

  Secondly,  the current popularity and wide-
spread use of raw sewage lagoons had its
start in, and received its momentum from,
Public Health Service Region VI, and I am
pleased that  members of my own staff have
made important contributions to this move-
ment.

  This Regional Office first had opportunity
to observe raw sewage lagoons in the State
of North Dakota through the  early work and
interest of Jerry Svore and Willis Van Heu-
velen. While we now  know that  several in-
stallations preceded those in North  Dakota,
most, if not all ponds were used for  supple-
mental treatment; not raw sewage. Jerry and
Van, as a team,  were the first to develop
design standards and to actively promote
raw sewage lagoons,  with full and unquali-
fied endorsement of the State Health  Depart-
ment.

  Their  enthusiasm was soon absorbed by
Glen Hopkins,  who became the first cham-
pion of the cause among Public Health Serv-'
ice officers. His early endorsement of heav-
ier loadings  and lesser isolation than used
in the Dakotas,  to facilitate  use of lagoons
in more densely populated areas, caused
some concern among Public Health  Service
engineers and in some State Health  Depart-
ments. Dr. Neel's evaluations  of early in-
stallations in the Kansas City area gave im-
petus to the movement. The plea of Regional
Office for investigations, research and dem-
onstration projects by the Service seemed
to fall upon unsympathetic  ears.  Fortu-
nately,  however,  Wally Towne also became
convinced - and the Public Health Service
did undertake some modest projects: an
evaluation of certain installations in the
Dakotas; the Fayette project, for which you
will receive the first report today; and  some
similar work at a penitentiary in Ohio which
has not yet been reported.

  This seems a minor  effort, and it is  re-
greted that the Public Health Service could
not have undertaken these efforts earlier
and more extensively. Surely they would
have enhanced the promotional efforts that
have led to the hundreds of installations we
now have. When we consider that the inter-
est started about 1950,  the several hundred
existing  installations constitutes amazing
progress.

  We in  Region VI are confident that in the
future raw sewage lagoons will play an  even
greater role in lessening the costs of safe-
guarding the sanitary quality of our water
resources.  My staff have  convinced me that
lagoons have saved communities in Region
VI more than they have gained from Federal
Grants.  We hope to share our experiences
with other parts of the country. We hope this
symposium will spread to other areas of the
country the  enthusiasm you note here.  If it
does this, the symposium will indeed be
worthwhile.

  I am happy to see the  excellent turn out  -
I understand we have 318 people registered
representing 32 states,  all Regional Offices
of the Public Health Service, and 7 foreign
countries. What started as a Regional Sym-
posium has  turned out to be  an international
conference. Much of the experience and
competency in this field is represented  here
today.

  It is a real pleasure to welcome you here.
The agenda  indicates you will be quite busy
the next five days, but I'm confident it will
be a pleasant and profitable  experience  for
you.
  •Regional Medical Director, Public Health Service Region VI, Kansas City, Missouri.

-------
HISTORY OF RAW SEWAGE LAGOONS
IN THE MIDWEST
JEROME H. SVORE*
Before delving into the history of sewage
lagoons, it might be well to briefly define
what is meant by the term lagoon as used
in this discussion. Various names have
been applied to an open pond which receives
sewage, such as stabilization lagoons, sta-
bilization ponds, oxidation ponds and la-
goons. In this instance, we are discussing
a pond of engineering design which is con-
structed for the purpose of receiving raw
sewage. It is further assumed that oxida-
tion ponds are considered to be those
ponds that are designed for the purpose of
receiving, at least, primarily settled sew-
age. This may be from an ordinary sewage
treatment plant, imhoff tank, septic tank
and the like. Sewage lagoons, however,
receive raw sewage from a municipality
including incidental industrial wastes.

During the mid-twenties, cities in Cali-
fornia, Texas, North Dakota and probably
other states, used lagoons as a means of
treating municipal sewage, however, in
each case it seemed to be more by accident
than design. It was during this period that a
student at the University of Texas made a
survey for the State Department of Health
in order to ascertain why the sewage from
the town of Palestine, which was discharg-
ing into a small, swampy area, was con-
verted to a fresh, sparkling stream after a
few miles. Shortly after this survey was
made, Vic Ehlers, then State Sanitary En-
gineer for Texas, was held, so to speak,
in mild ridicule when he suggested during a
National engineering meeting that aquatic
plants probably played an important part in
the oxidation of this sewage. It was a short
while later that Mr. Ehlers recommended
to the city of Abilene that they pond their
sewage by the construction of a small dam
until such time as a sewage treatment plant
could be built. This lagoon functioned suc-
cessfully for many years. During the mid-
thirties, Texas A & M College became
interested in the operations at Abilene and
constructed a 14-acre pond at the College
to carry on some limited investigations of
lagoon operation.

In 1924, Santa Rosa, California, in an
attempt to escape the cost of a sewage
treatment plant, uncovered gravel beds
which the city council thought could be
used as natural filters prior to discharging
city sewage into the then highly polluted
Santa Rosa Creek. Raw sewage was dis-
charged on to the exposed gravel which
shortly became sealed resulting in an im-
poundment of sewage to a depth of about
three feet. Fortunately for the city, how-
ever, the experiment was not a failure and
the overflowing effluent from the pond re-
sembled an effluent from a trickling filter.
It had no odor and was easily disinfected.
Also in 1924, the town of Vacaville, Cali-
fornia, being faced with a sewage disposal
problem, used a dry gulley as an impound-
ing reservoir for releases of sewage during
the winter months only. Here again it was
found that the impounded sewage underwent
characteristic changes through BOD reduc-
tion with an increase of dissolved oxygen
and in some cases nitrogen was found to be
present.

The first lagoon of record in North Da-
kota was in the town of Fessenden and was
placed in operation during 1928. This com-
munity had no nearby stream to handle the
effluent from the new sewage system com-
pleted during that year so they decided to
empty their sewage into a pothole about a
mile and a half from the town hoping that
the distance would be adequate to prevent
any odor or nuisance problem. This na-
tural lagoon is still in operation 32 years
later and the city has experienced no odor
or nuisance problems. It was the success
of this enterprise that gave engineers some
degree of confidence that a raw sewage
'Regional Program Director, Water Supply & Pollution Control, Public Health Service, Dallas, Texas (former North Dakota State
Sanitary Engineer).

-------
lagoon could be designed,  placed in opera-
tion and function successfully considerably
closer to  a city.

  Although there is much information in the
literature on various types and designs of
ponds used for sewage disposal here and
abroad, indications are that the modern-
day lagoon built on good,  sound engineering
principles under modern concepts of treat-
ing raw sewage was first placed in opera-
tion in 1948 in Maddock, North Dakota.
Prior to this time, there had been no real
recognition on the part of any official agen-
cy that a raw  sewage lagoon was an accept-
able, reputable method of handling sewage,
although oxidation ponds had been accepted
as a means  of  handling the effluent from a
primary plant. In fact, the State of Texas
had some  200 installations of this type,
but it seems that no engineer had purposely
proceeded to design a pond to handle raw
sewage on a permanent basis.

  Credit should be given at this point to
Mr. L. W.  Burdick of the engineering firm
of Lium and Burdick who is responsible for
this  initial design.

  Maddock is a town of approximately 1, 000
people and it was felt that a lagoon of 10
acres would be needed. This initial design,
with a maximum depth of five feet, proved
to be adequate from a treatment standpoint,
and a high degree of BOD reduction was
found at any point 50 feet or more from the
influent line which was located at the cen-
ter of the  pond. Because the lagoon is  in a
pothole  area,  however, it was found neces-
sary to expand its size as seepage and evap-
oration were  not  adequate to dispose  of
the entire sewage flow. A second and third
cell was added two years later.  Sewage now
flows in series through the three ponds
providing  adequate area for seepage and
evaporation to obviate the necessity of a
discharge to a water course.  The second
and third  ponds also provide additional
treatment but the basic treatment occurs
in the first cell.

   The  success of this installation brought
about considerable enthusiasm on the  part
of the North Dakota State  Health Depart-
ment engineers and they became active
promoters of this method of treatment
shortly thereafter. Several towns con-
structed lagoons during the following year,
including the towns of Portland,  Grenora,
Butte, Hope and New Town.  The rate of
construction increased considerably during
the following years and to date over  100
communities have raw sewage lagoons as
their means of treating municipal sewage.
This approximates two-thirds of the  sewered
municipalities  in the entire state.

  It is only fair to mention that during the
initial introduction of lagoons into the Da-
kotas, the  State Health Department  engi-
neers were subject to some  ridicule. One
enterprising city editor wrote an editorial
of some  literary accomplishment depicting
the youth of the community skating in the
moonlight on the beautiful lagoon with an
occasional individual falling through the ice
with somewhat disastrous results.

  A few  city councils throughout the state
enthusiastically supported the idea of a sew-
age lagoon almost from the beginning and
saw them as the economic solution to their
money problems.  In some instances, a com-
munity was able to construct a sewage sys-
tem where prior to this time it had  been
impossible because  of the high cost of a con-
ventional sewage treatment plant. Neverthe-
less, State Health Department engineers
felt that  universal support throughout the
state would never be fully recognized until
lagoons could be upgraded in the eyes of
competent  engineers and agencies outside
of the state.

   In 1951 Glen Hopkins, Engineer-In-Charge
of Public Health Service Water Pollution
activities in the Missouri Basin, was invited
to North Dakota to make  a personal inspec-
tion of lagoons then in operation. It should
be said that he was a "gone gooner"  from
the start and has been an enthusiastic sup-
porter ever since. It was still not enough,
of course,  that the Basin Office in Kansas
City favored this method of sewage  treat-
ment,  and it was felt that what was  really
needed was an extensive investigation of
the lagoons that were then in operation. Al-
though support for such a project was almost
immediate from Wally Towne, Engineer-In-
Charge of Field Investigations at the Sani-
tary Engineering Center in Cincinnati as
well as others, it was nearly three  years
before funds were made available to actu-
ally get the work under way.

  In the meantime, other  agencies of govern-
ment had become interested in lagoons. The

-------
Corps of Engineers,  building a 20 million
acre-foot reservoir on the main stem of
the Missouri River in North Dakota, had a
mammoth relocation job ahead of them.
Much of the land to be flooded was within
the Fort Berthhold Indian Reservation.
Schools had to be relocated as well as small
communities, and the construction of some
sewage disposal  facilities became the re-
sponsibility of the Corps. The District Of-
fice of the Corps of Engineers at Garrison
was enthusiastic about the State  Health De-
partment's  recommendations to build la-
goons at these relocated sites. Here again,
the Basin Engineer of the Public Health
Service in Kansas City was called upon to
obtain approval  at higher levels  within the
Corps.  Subsequently, this approval was
obtained and these federal installations
were numbered  amongst the first lagoons
to be built in the state. A few years later,
the combined influence of the State Health
Department, the Basin Office of the Public
Health Service,  and the Corps of Engineers
personnel at Garrison was again brought to
bear in connection with the  construction of
two Strategic  Air Command bases at Grand
Forks and Minot, North Dakota. This was
the first use of raw lagoons by the Air
Force and some of the top ranking engineers
at the Washington level took a rather dim
view of the Health Department's proposal.
Nevertheless, with the State  Health De-
partment being insistent on this  type of
construction and with the complete approval
of the Public  Health Service Basin Office,
the Air Force abandoned its original pro-
posal of activated sludge plants.

   The reason back of the State Health De-
partment attitude in this matter  may be of
interest. The average military installation,
such as one of the Strategic Air  Command
bases,  operates  on daily cycles  of high and
low water use. This  is not  conducive to
high efficiency of operation in the normal
type of sewage treatment plant.  On the
other hand,  "slugging" a raw sewage la-
goon with high volumes for a short period
of time, does not affect its operation. More
important than this,  however, was the fact
that both of these installations were to be
located in areas where only dry-run creeks
were available for final disposal of sewage.
A lagoon could be designed in such a way
that no final disposal was necessary over
and beyond  seepage and evaporation. Al-
though outlet  structures were provided, it
was not anticipated that they would be used.
On the other hand,  should they ever be used,
the lagoon size was  such,  and the treatment
of such adequacy, that an  intermittent^ef-
fluent would in no way cause an obnoxious
condition.

  South Dakota was  quick  to follow the foot-
steps of its sister state to the north and
even called on North Dakota to provide the
site on which to construct the lagoon serv-
ing one of its  communities.  Lemmon, South
Dakota purchased land across the state line
on which their lagoon was built.

  By the year 1955,  there was little, if any,
controversy in either of the  Dakotas in re-
gard to the  use of sewage  lagoons, except
in a few isolated cases. By that time, there
were nearly 100 lagoons in the Missouri
Basin States,  and they were already being
designed for use in the Pacific Northwest.

  The State of Missouri did not consider the
use of lagoons until after  one of their engi-
neers had visited North Dakota in the fall
of 1953 to observe installations then in oper-
ation.  The enthusiasm of this  engineer,
Jack Smith, upon his return to Missouri,
resulted in some of the consulting engineer-
ing firms starting work on them immedi-
ately.  Within a year several were under
construction in various parts of the state.
The Missouri State  Health Department,
along with the County and City Engineers,
recommended the use of lagoons  as interim
facilities for  subdivision development  pend-
ing the  installation of interceptor and trunk
sewers. Some of the first installations of
this type were made in late  1954  and 1955.
The local residents, however,  in many in-
stances, objected to having  a sewage
lagoon near their home, even on  a tempo-
rary basis, and consistently brought their
objections before the zoning boards. The
development of lagoons gave some of these
local interests new  grounds on which to op-
pose zoning.  They claimed the lagoons were
too new,  unproved,  experimental, open
ponds of sewage conducive to fly  and mos-
 quito breeding,  odor, etc.  Nevertheless,
the boards  continued to grant applications
and within a short time there were numer-
ous lagoons installed in the  subdivision
areas of Jackson County,  Missouri, which
is part of the Kansas City metropolitan
area.

-------
  Kansas accepted sewage lagoons at a
much later date. The first installations in
the Kansas portion of the Kansas City met-
ropolitan area was the Mission Township
installation.  The zoning hearing on this in-
stallation was during December 1955,  and
they requested testimony from  Mr. W.  Van
Heuvelen, Chief of the Water Pollution
Control Program in the  State of North Da-
kota. As usual, the opposition considered
lagoons to be untried and of an  experi-
mental nature, and, therefore, insisted
that the installation should not be made.
Nevertheless,  the lagoon was installed
on a temporary basis and operated suc-
cessfully. Within the last two or three
years, Kansas has openly accepted lagoons
for the treatment of raw sewage as a
proven installation and th«y no  longer re-
quire a minimum of primary treatment
ahead of the  lagoon.

  Although the Pacific Northwest can
hardly be considered to  have a  part in the
history of lagoons in the Midwest,  brief
mention of their spread  westward might be
in order. Vale, Oregon  was the first city
in that part of the country to inquire  of their
consulting engineers as  to the feasibility of
using a lagoon to treat sewage from their
community.  Fortunately they had employed
the firm of Clark and Groff of Salem, Ore-
gon, former  North Dakota engineers of the
pre-lagoon era who had  kept themselves
informed of progress being made in the use
of lagoons. As a result,  Vale became the
pioneering city in the Pacific Northwest
with the  first modern-day engineered la-
goon as their treatment  facility,

  Other  engineers of this area were  quick
to follow with their own  variations in de-
sign. It seemed to be very difficult for the
average  consultant to divorce his thinking
from the old  tried and true method of sew-
age treatment, namely,  first removing
settleable solids.  It seemed logical,  there-
fore, to  have a small primary pond to
catch the solids. Some were built this way,
which of course, resulted in an anaerobic
primary cell. Such a lagoon was built at
Long Beach,  Washington and provided ex-
cellent research facilities for the State
Health Department,  Pollution Control
Board,  and the Public Health Service Port-
land Office.  Despite the  under-design, the
anaerobic condition, an  effluent filter that
did not function, and a population that
varied from 700 in the winter to 7, 000 on a
summer weekend,  there were no complaints.

   It was quite  obvious after the first year's
operation, however, that a. single cell would
have performed better,  been simpler to con-
struct, and cost considerably less. A simi-
lar design in another location may not have
been as satisfactory. Although this was a
high-rainfall area  with little sunlight,  a
continual onshore breeze allowed homes to
be constructed 150 feet  to the west of the
lagoon.

   Another pioneering design that should be
mentioned in passing •was also for a Wash-
ington city,, The consulting engineer pro-
posed  a circular lagoon with dykes running
like spokes of  a wheel to a central lagoon.
Here again, was the old principle of pri-
mary settling. The writer recommended
removing all internal dykes and building the
lagoon as one large cell.

   During the latter part of 1954, the Public
Health Service had secured  adequate re-
search funds to start limited field investi-
gations in the Dakotas.  William Davis,  out
of Wally Towne's office at the Sanitary
Engineering Center in Cincinnati,  arrived
in Bismarck early in 1955,,  During the next
year and a half, he conducted an extensive
field investigation  of three lagoons in South
Dakota and three in North Dakota. A final
report published in 1957 indicated the suc-
cess of sewage lagoons  even though some of
those studied were not built in accordance
with accepted design.  The report,  never-
theless,  did bring about  a degree  of re-
spectability that this type of facility had not
previously enjoyed. It also substantiated the
fact that the basic criteria originally
adopted for design seemed to be quite well
justified.

   During this same period,  the Public
Health Service further backed their interest
in lagoon research by constructing a group
of ponds at Lebanon, Ohio near the Sanitary
Engineering Center, and established an ad-
ditional research project in connection with
an experimental lagoon  at Fayette,  Mis-
souri.  The results of this experimental
work had considerable influence on their
adoption in the Lower Missouri Basin.

   The  State Sanitary Engineers of the Mis-
souri Basin States continued their pioneering

-------
by promulgating the first set of design
standards to be adopted by more than one
state.  At this point, it seems, lagoons fi-
nally became of age and could be spoken of
with dignity  in proper circles.  It is inter-
esting  to note that these recommended de-
sign criteria in no way deviated from the
basic concept of design originally devel-
oped by Roy Burdick for the Maddock la-
goon back in 1948.

  Other states in the midwest were quick
to see  the advantage of raw sewage lagoons
although not  mentioned in this narration.
Montana had units in operation shortly af-
ter the first  North Dakota lagoons  were
built.  The Chief Engineer of the Provincial
Health Department of Sask, Canada was  an
early visitor to Dakota installations and
was one of the first to recommend the use
of this method of treatment for  Regina,
Sask. , a city of nearly 100, 000 population.
Oklahoma too, first took advantage of raw
lagoons during the early fifties  with the
State Health  Department engineers approv-
ing the first  set of plans submitted in con-
formance with modern design criteria.
Wyoming and Colorado, whose Chief Sani-
tary Engineers had first-hand experience
with early North Dakota lagoons,  carried
their enthusiasm with them when they took
over their present responsibilities.

  It is too much of a temptation in relating
the history of lagoons in the midwest, not
to tell  the story of sewage treatment facil-
ities in Minot, North Dakota. It is cer-
tainly  a commendation for raw sewage la-
goons. This city of nearly 30,000 population
completed a  modern treatment  plant, com-
plete with filters,  final clarification, recir-
culation and vacuum sludge drying during the
early fifties. In fact,  it was the last sew-
age treatment plant built in the  state. Be-
cause  of the  lack of funds, parallel units
were not constructed but in order to insure
construction within a five-year  period,
when anticipated expansion was thought to
be necessary, duplicate equipment was
purchased at the request of the  State Health
Department.  The  city postponed further ac-
action  even after the five-year period, try-
ing to  determine whether to expand the
present plant,  using equipment already
purchased,  or  to abandon this modern fa-
cility and start over  with a lagoon at a
new site.  The decision was made recently
in favor  of  the latter. The  long range
economics of the situation, taking into
consideration the cost of operation and
maintenance and the effect of the effluent
on the Mouse River weighed heavily in fa-
vor of a lagoon despite the abandonment of
a modern plant that cost the city over
$600, 000. Mr. Van Heuvelen's comment
on this was  that they got caught between
model changes. This frequently happens
also when you buy a new car.

  It would be difficult to determine accu-
rately the number of installations  now
operating in the United States that are de-
signed essentially along the lines of that
first installation in Maddock back in the
last forties. No doubt the number  built
during the last ten  years numbers in the
hundreds. There have been many and
varied designs where the consulting engi-
neer felt that he could improve on the basic
simplicity of the originally designed la-
goon at Maddock,  North Dakota. It is
questionable at this date, however, that
building a more complicated lagoon has in
any way improved its  effectiveness as a
sewage treatment facility.

  Maybe the honor of having the first sew-
age lagoon, or at least the first pond to
receive sewage should go to the city of San
Antonio, Texas, where sewage was ponded
at the turn of the century.  The city at that
time contracted with R. H. Russel, J.  A.
Simons and Associates "for the  construc-
tion of a ditch, dam, and reservoir on
Mitchell Lake  for the proper disposal of
sewage of the city  of San Antonio. " Most
early Texas installations utilized  sewage
holding ponds primarily for broad irriga-
tion but nevertheless,  this  was  pioneer-
ing and led  the way to later applications.
Certainly the consulting engineers, mu-
nicipal officials, and the State Health
Department engineers in North Dakota and
other midwestern states have their little
place in history for the  emphasis they gave
to this effective means of treating sewage.

-------
THE HISTORY OF OXIDATION PONDS IN THE SOUTHWEST
D. E. SMALLHORST*
The title of this presentation is such as
to invite considerable reference to the State
of Texas; consequently, it is trusted the
following comments will be received in the
spirit of a historical review which may or
may not be firmly documented in the jour-
nals of our profession and not as another
"Texas brag". Truly, the evolution of
present day oxidation pond sewage treat-
ment devices does have certain roots which
originated in Texas as far back as the turn
of this century. A brief resume of this
background is submitted here to substan-
tiate this statement.

Any claim to fame the State of Texas
might make for pioneering the use of oxi-
dation ponds in the field of sewage treat-
ment can probably be attributed to two ma-
jor influences. The principal influence is
undoubtedly the arid nature of a large por-
tion of the State, which leads the citizens
of that area to have a very high regard and
respect for water. What is considered a
legitimate water use in some sections of
the nation is looked upon as an illegitimate
water abuse in this area. The average an-
nual rainfall across Texas varies from
less than 10 inches at El Paso on the West
to about 50 inches at Texarkana on the
East. It is hardly astonishing then, that
under these circumstances it becomes al-
most second nature for Texans to attempt
to make full use of all available water sup-
plies. This tendency is reflected in history
wherein the sewage from the City of San
Antonio was utilized on the City Hay Farm
as early as 1901. The second major influ-
ence in Texas' early development and use
of oxidation ponds is undoubtedly the re-
sult of the visionary genius and insatiable
inquisitiveness of one V. M. Ehlers, State
Sanitary Engineer of the Health Depart-
ment for some 44 years, from 1915 to
1959. The very nature of this gentleman
was such as to instill in others the desire
to search for answers of the many un-
knowns which would contribute to a more
healthful environment.Very important,
also, was his emphasis upon economy-
getting the cost down where it would be
within reach of individual citizens of
smaller communities. It was through his
efforts that many of the early oxidation
pond, or pond-irrigation, projects were
initiated. Mr. Ehlers also sponsored
many of the early basic studies on oxida-
tion pond performance which served as a
starting point for the establishment of de-
sign criteria when the big boom in oxida-
tion pond construction started in the early
1940's (during World War II).

The development of sewage lagoons, as
they were called in Texas during the early
days, is primarily the result of the out-
growth of the practice of land disposal of
sewage effluent in that vast area of defi-
cient rainfall for irrigation water. As pre-
viously inferred, the City of San Antonio
went into the sewage lagoon-irrigation
business in the first decade of this cen-
tury. The artificial impoundment involved
in this operation became known as Mitchell
Lake, which is still in use and is com-
prised of some 680 acres of surface area
with a maximum depth of about 12 feet,
averaging, however, 4 to 5 feet in depth.
Admittedly, it was constructed as a hold-
ing pond in order to permit more efficient
use of water for irrigation, but algae be-
gan oxidizing the sewage in the lake, thus
constituting probably the first and cer-
tainly the largest oxidation pond in this
country. During the third decade, in 1925
to be more specific, a lagoon-irrigation
arrangement was set up by the City of
Abilene which served the City until the ad-
vent of Public Law 660 when more refine-
ments were added but land disposal is still
being utilized. A great deal of basic data
was obtained from the experimental pond
built at Texas A & M College in 1929, while
in 193'6 the City of Kingsville installation
was constructed, receiving all of the sew-
age from the City of Kingsville and serving
*Director Water Pollution Control Division, Texas State Department of Health, Austin, Texas.

-------
as an irrigation water source for agricul-
tural experimentation on the famous King
Ranch.  Considerable research was con-
ducted on this pond by Texas A &; I College
of Kingsville.

  As we recall, it was the results of the
studies made on these early installations
that influenced Mr. Ehlers and his co-
workers to conclude that some type of pri-
mary treatment was highly desirable ahead
of impoundments in order to adequately
dispose of solids, floating material, con-
trol public health hazards,  and reduce
odors.  This policy is  still being continued
to date,  altho recent  developments and re-
search results appear to contradict their
original  conclusions. To learn more about
this aspect of pond operation is the main
reason for our attendance at this sym-
posium;  but to  return to our historical re-
view.

  In the  early stages of World War II, rapid
and unpredictable population increases at
military installations as well as at neigh-
boring municipalities brought about the
construction of numerous oxidation ponds
to cope with the resultant overloads  upon
existing  facilities. The fact that this type
of construction could be accomplished fast,
cheap, and with a minimum use  of critical
material made them especially attractive.
Consequently,  by the end of the war, Texas
had acquired quite a number of oxidation
pond installations which afforded an  excel-
lent opportunity for conducting performance
studies and planned observations. This  op-
portunity was further capitalized upon as
engineering and technical personnel  of the
Department returned from the Services
and the staff began to assume its peace-
time stature. A summary of these studies
is recorded in  Chapter XIII of the 2nd Edi-
tion of the "Manual for Sewage Plant Oper-
ators" written,  edited, published, and sold
by the Texas Water and Sewage Works As-
sociation. This publication came out late
in 1950 or early  in 1951 and coincidentally
other works  on oxidation ponds began to
appear in technical publications.  Duringthe
period from  1950 to about 1955, oxidation
ponds were  a very popular subject of dis-
cussion between  engineers and technicians
of neighboring  as well as more remote
States,  and during this time several States
in the Southwest  tried a few ponds "on for
size". At the present time according to
figures obtained in a very recent survey of
five States in Region VII there are a total
of 274 ponds in operation. Further refer-
ence will be made regarding this survey
later in this paper.  With regard to the State
of Texas  however,  from  1946 to date there
has been  a gradual and orderly formulation
of policies by the Texas Health Department
as to the  use and application of oxidation
ponds. There are now some 700 sewage
treatment plants in Texas and of these
about 200 have oxidation ponds or "la-
goons" in one form or another. Most of
these utilize the ponds as  a means of sec-
ondary treatment, with the ponds being the
flow-through type and the  effluent being
discharge to a water course or employed
for irrigation. In this predominately water
scarce area,  it is not exactly surprising,
therefore, that the  utilization of effluent on
land has resulted in several law suits by
downstream riparian landowners claiming
rights to the use of this water and insisting
it be placed in the stream.

  Although it is rather difficult to de-
scribe a "typical" oxidation pond installa-
tion,  most of the Texas  plants follow a >
rather routine pattern quite similar  to
those in other areas; however,  there are
four rather novel applications worthy of
mention for general interest. The City of
Austin has recently constructed ponds to
treat excess activated sludge and digester
overflow. Approximately  275, 000 gpd  of
waste activated sludge with a BOD of about
4, 500 ppm plus about 15, 000 gpd of di-
gester overflow with a BOD of about 300
ppm, are pumped into three ponds which
can be operated in  series or parallel.
These ponds are 85, 65,  and 41 acres in
size. River water is added at a rate vary-
ing from  2, 500 to 10, 000  gpm chiefly for
the purpose of maintaining a constant wa-
ter level  in the ponds. About 7 MGD of
effluent with a BOD of less than 20 ppm
is returned to the river.

  So much for the application of oxidation
ponds  to the treatment of  domestic sew-
age. The use of ponds in the treatment of
industrial waste is also  encouraging as
well as interesting. Of course, in Texas,
ponds  have  been applied rather extensively
to rural type  of slaughter houses, poultry
dressing  plants, milk processing plants,
and even  washateria wastes.  These are
usually preceded by septic tanks of one
sort or another. In  more  recent years the
adaptation of pond treatment to larger and
more complex industries  has been quite
gratifying.  Probably the  first large-scale
                                          8

-------
installation was at a cotton seed oil proc-
essing plant to treat the process waste by
the use of some 15 ponds constructed on
the contours of an 85 acre hillside. The
first pond served as a receiving pond and
from there the flow was split to 14 ponds
operating in series-parallel. The  raw
waste had a BOD  of about 3, 000 ppm
whereas the waste in the last pond had 100
ppm BOD or less. Because of evaporation
and seepage losses there is  ordinarily no
effluent, but in the event there were,  it
would probably be of satisfactory quality.
Odor problems were quite serious at this
installation for about the first 18 months
of operation, then apparently the proper
strain or organism  "took over" and no fur-
ther difficulties have been experienced.
The City of Weslaco operates  32 acres of
oxidation ponds  specifically  designed to
treat canning plant wastes ranging from
peas to pineapples.  The ponds are located
adjacent to the domestic sewage treatment
plant,  which is of the two stage high-rate
trickling filter variety.  Two ponds, six-
teen acres each, are designed to operate
in series, treating some 300, 000 gallons
of food processing wastes per day. Ini-
tially,  sodium nitrate was added to supply
nitrogen and reduce the  BOD loading,
which, dependent  upon operations  in the
collector system, varied greatly,  as re-
flected in discharges of  can  cooling water
with a BOD around 20 ppm while spillage
from can fillers or reamer operations
have a BOD of some 50,000 ppm. The
average  BOD of the mixture  was con-
sidered to be about 750  ppm.  The  initial
operation was not successful,  partly due
to abuse of the waste collection system  by
discharge of such materials as grapefruit
rinds,  whole carrots, whole tomatoes,
silt, etc. , and  even when this abuse was
abated, operation was  still  not entirely
successful. It was decided then to  add ef-
fluent  from the  domestic sewage plant to
the industrial waste ponds.  This was done
since the effluent was known to be rich  in
nitrogen and also  contained available dis-
solved oxygen which could be  utilized
directly. Possibly the most  valuable con-
tribution was biological  seed material of
an aerobic type.  Effluent is  now added at
a rate  of about 400 gpm  and the combined
discharge of domestic and industrial
wastes from the ponds has an  average
BOD of 8. 0 ppm and a dissolved oxygen
content of 2.0 ppm. The process has op-
erated in a satisfactory manner for five
yeais. A petrochemical plant in East
Texas has successfully applied pond ac-
tion to the treatment of its wastes. A
series of ponds totaling 62.6 acres is  uti-
lized. The raw waste is deficient in sev-
eral respects and consequently, nutrients,
such as nitrogen and phosphorous  are
added. Studies made by the company re-
vealed that the waste was  also deficient
in certain basic trace elements; conse-
quently,  these are also added and  an en-
vironment is created for desirable bio-
logical life. To our knowledge, this is one
of the first instances reporting the use of
trace elements for such purposes.  Very
rigid control is maintained over the pond
environment by unique instrumentation de-
veloped by the company.  A rapid photo-
electric  method determines the "algae
count" which,  correlated with the  results
of various chemical and biological tests
indicates the amount and variety of nu-
trients required to maintain satisfactory
biological conditions. It is interesting to
note that the performance of the ponds is
best in the summer when the receiving
stream has the least assimilative  capacity
and not as efficient as  in the winter when
the stream flow is greater and the  dis-
solved oxygen in the  stream is not critical.
The ponds treat approximately 2 million
gallons of wastes per day without any re-
ported nuisance and resulting in BOD's as
low as 20 ppm with a small amount of dis-
solved oxygen present  in the effluent.  Al-
though not directly related to  this  subject,
it may be of some interest that one plant
in Texas is disposing of around 500 gpm
of process water entirely by solar  evapo-
ration and have obtained evaporation rates
of from  3 to 7 gpm per acre of pond area
during the past 8 or 10 years.

  Admittedly,  all has not  been serene on
the oxidation pond front.  There have been
failures  and there have been intermittent
weaknesses. These occurrences, how-
ever, represent a very small  percentage
of the total installations. Nonetheless,
these should not be minimized at a dis-
cussion of this nature.

  One disappointment has  been the  attempt
to treat indigo dye wastes  from a textile
mill by ponds.  Here primary treatment is
provided for domestic sewage from a
town of about  15,000  population. This ef-
fluent is  mixed with the mill waste  and
discharged into a pond  system comprised
                                          9

-------
of two ponds operating in series totaling
about 57. 5 acres surface area. The in-
dustrial waste flow is about 250,000 gpd
whereas the domestic flow averages
about 1. 5 MGD. Odor has been a con-
stant source of complaints, but control
has been attained with the addition of an-
hydrous ammonia in dosages  up to lOppm.

   The general objections to the green color
of pond effluent is reflected in the  aban-
donment of a pond system serving  one  city
with the construction of  a conventional
complete treatment plant. The  effluent was
discharged into a stream which meandered
through a city park. Whereas the color
problem has been corrected to  the satis-
faction of everyone concerned,  there now
exists complaints of froth or  foam below a
small low water dam within the City.  In
some isolated and widely separated instal-
lations  reports of scum  forming and col-
lecting  in certain portions of  ponds which
under certain conditions gives off an odor
which we have classified as a "pig pen
odor".  Needless to say,  this  is indeed a
most repulsive odor. Other conditions re-
ported involve ponds turning from  green
to pink and in some instances almost red.
The  odor nuisance  here  seems erratic,
sometimes there is no odor and at other
times there is an odor but definitely not
the pig  pen odor. Perhaps the most
troublesome aspect of pond installations
confronting the Health Department is the
problem of mosquito  control. Encephalitis
is considered endemic in many areas of
Texas,  and it is known that several vec-
tors are attracted to the type of water  in
oxidation ponds. However, it is also rec-
ognized that the known endemic areas are
also areas of widespread irrigation prac-
tice  - some using ground water and some
using surface water; consequently,  the
mosquito problem is there without the  in-
troduction of oxidation ponds.  Nonethe-
less, it is  this  potential hazard that influe-
ences us to accept ponds on a temporary
or emergency basis.  Studies  have  shown
that  mosquito breeding is absent or negli-
gible in well engineered and well main-
tained ponds. The engineering can be con-
trolled, but it is an obligation of the mu-
nicipality to prove  that they accept the
responsibility for providing proper main-
tenance of the ponds before such installa-
tions can be accepted on an unqualified
basis.
  It has been interesting to observe how
the use of ponds has spread to other States
and numerous foreign countries during re-
cent years,  and it is  gratifying to feel that
perhaps in some small way our State  has
contributed to certain phases of this trend..
In any event, it definitely appears that
these ponds are with  us to stay as there is
far too much in their favor to cause belief
that they are merely  a passing fancy.
Therefore, we should be moved toward
the acquisition of more knowledge about
the performance of these ponds so their
application will be on as sound an engi-
neering basis as possible. At the present
time and with our present knowledge, can
the quality of oxidation pond effluent be
as confidently predetermined in the design
stage as can the effluent quality from
trickling filter or activated sludge plants ?
If not, then perhaps a second look is in
order.

  With regard to the  use of oxidation ponds
in the  Southwest, we  have just received the
reports of a survey being made of the poli-
cies, official and unofficial thinking of the
States in the Region VII area,  which in-
cludes Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico,
Louisiana, and Texas. The purpose of this
questionnaire was to  obtain as much infor-
mation as possible about the status of oxi-
dation ponds in this area,  to tabulate  this
information and to present a summary to
a Regional Conference which will be held
in Dallas in September with  representa-
tives of these five States.  In developingthe
questionnaire, we attempted to include as
many questions as possible so that  a good
cross-section picture could  be obtained as
to how close together the various States
might be in certain areas  of thinking as
well as determining those areas where the
States were pretty widely  separated.  For
this reason,  the questionnaire was  divided
into eight general divisions, with the first
one attempting to determine the preference
for nomenclature of ponds, the second to
determine the States  attitude towards ponds
as to approval of ponds as a recognized
method of sewage treatment. The third
area covers information on basic design
criteria used by the various States, and
the fourth is the section to determine the
type of requirements  as to the location of
ponds. The fifth is to determine if any ex-
periments had been conducted on stocking
ponds with fish,  and  the sixth is a deter-
                                          10

-------
mination of the attitude concerning utili-
zation of pond effluent for irrigation. The
seventh pertains to the disinfection of pond
effluent and the last section to general
comments.

  After the  questionnaire was developed,
Mr.  Carl Thompson of the Region VII
Office personally took the questionnaire to
the various  States and filled it out to the
best of his ability.  In this endeavor,  Mr.
Thompson reported that a number of the
States do not have written criteria or de-
sign standards on pond installations. Con-
sequently,  the comments included on the
questionnaire indicate more or less in-
dividual thinking rather than set established
regulations  or requirements of the States.
It should be mentioned here,  also, that in
some instances Mr. Thompson was not
able to contact the individual  in charge of
this  phase of work within the Health
Department and, consequently, some of
the recorded answers might not neces-
sarily reflect the thinking of that particular
individual. It was interesting, also,  to
learn that even within individual State Dept-
ments, that thinking in certain areas of
oxidation pond operation differed  between
individuals of the Department. This is true
of our State and it indicates the need for
something like this questionnaire to crys-
tallize our overall opinion so that we will
not be sodiversifiedeven among our selves .

  In summarizing the results of this first
go-around on the questionnaire, it is inter-
esting to note that three  of the States pre-
ferred the term "oxidation ponds" with two
favoring "stabilization po-nds".  One State
expressed a preference for the term  "la-
goon" where raw sewage was used.

  With regard to the attitude  of these States
concerning ponds, three of them would ac-
cept  ponds on an unqualified basis, four
accepted them as a permanent type of plant,
and all five  accepted them on an emergency
or temporary basis. Three States accept
ponds for the treatment of raw sewage
where an effluent is produced, whereas two
will  not.  Four States accept them as sec-
ondary treatment units with the production
of an effluent. All five States were appar-
ently satisfied with the ponds as they are
presently used.  These five States reported
a total of 274 ponds in operation and these
ponds  represent  from 9 to 27 percent ofthe
sewage treatment plants in individual
States.
  With regard to operational results, it is
interesting to note that four of the five
States report that they had received odor
complaints,  mosquito breeding had been
observed,  and excessive weed growth was
existing in ponds. It is reported that only one
State had received complaints about the
color of the pond effluent as being objec-
tionable.  Four States  reported they had
made studies on operating efficiency as
well as bacterial removal in ponds.  All
five states reported operational results
generally favorable.  The time pond opera-
tion had been under observation in these
States varied from 3  years to 25 years.

  With regard to design criteria, practic-
ally all of the States seem to base the load-
ing on pounds of BOD per acre  of surface
areas and the loading  figure is  surpris-
ingly close,  varying from a low of 30
pounds per acre to a  high of 50 pounds per
acre of surface area.  The five  States
seemed to be somewhat apart in their re-
quirements of  satisfying the organic load
in that two require the total load to be
satisfied in the first pond and three do not
have this  requirement. Four of the States,
however,  have a limitation on the size of
the first pond.  With regard to recircula-
tion,  none of the States require  recircula-
tion facilities,  but two States encouraged
the practice.


  With reference to inlet and outlet struc-
ture, all five States appear to concur that
the  inlet  structure should be  submerged
with the location varying from the center
to the side. Other requirements in this
area indicate the States to be somewhat
separated in their feelings  as indicated on
the  summary sheet. All States seemed to
be fairly close together in their require-
ments of maximum, minimum,  and aver-
age depth as well  as free-board. The States
were also in accord as to desired inside
and outside slopes of dikes.

  Four States have no requirements as  to
location of the  ponds  with reference  to
prevailing winds,  although  there are re-
quirements by  most of the States concern-
ing  the proximity to habitation.  Location
with regard to  proximity to surface and
ground water supplies is rather diversified.

  Evidently one State  encourages the stock-
ing  of these ponds with fish but  the practice
                                          11

-------
does not seem to have obtained much head-
way at this time.

  All five States were together in their at-
tude regarding the utilization of pond ef-
fluent on restricted crops.  The reports
from the States on their attitude about the
chlorination of pond effluent shows con-
siderable variation, from not requiring any
chlorination to the conventional attitude of
requiring it where it is deemed to protect
health and abate nuisance.

  The general  comments received from
the States on this subject are rather inter-
esting in that it is indicated that there is
still some reservations in the minds of
those questioned as to the application or
limitation of ponds in the field of sewage
treatment; however, these  limitations are
not specifically spelled out. The results of
this survey are submitted here on an un-
official and informal basis  and certainly do
not reflect the  official policies of these
States with regard to  this  Subject.  The
purpose of submitting this  summary to this
symposium is to acquaint the group with
an approach which has been taken in this
field and an attempt to evaluate on an area-
wide basis the  attitude of the various agen-
cies concerning ponds with the desire to
possibly unify some of the  design criteria
where ever possible.  This  survey report
will be resubmitted to the individual States
involved for possible revision of their re-
plies and then it will be  discussed in  con-
siderable detail at the regional technical
meeting in September. This is reviewed
here merely as a topic of possible interest
in the event some other  areas desire to
conduct a similar study.

  As one who was subjected to the Ehlers
modus  operand! for almost a quarter cen-
tury, it would be a gross dereliction of duty
if the potentialities of this  symposium were
not capitalized upon to the fullest.   We,
from Texas, welcome this  opportunity to
suggest to this  symposium  three  principal
objectives,  which in our  humble opinion, if
attained only in part,  would do much to-
ward contributing to a successful meeting.

   The first objective, we hope,  would be
for the proceedings of this symposium to
record on one  place a listing of reports of
research, studies, and observations on
oxidation pond performance. Undoubtedly
each State or Agency represented at this
symposium had conducted certain investi-
gations of varying magnitude on some
phase of pond operation.  Likewise, it is
safe to  presume that little, if any,  distri-
bution has  been given to these reports  out-
side the rather  limited confines of the  in-
dividual State circles.  If this meeting
serves  no other purpose than to gather to
gether sources  of such reports and list
them in the proceedings, it will be  well
worth-while.

  The second objective, we trust, would be
initiating of'discussions toward the unifi-
cation of pond design criteria.  Here, for
possibly the first time,  we have an assem-
bly of engineers and technicians from
many of the State utilizing ponds. The  high
calibre of technical know-how and the total
number of  years of  experience  with pond
installations represented here is most im-
pressive. Why not,  then, take advantage
of this opportunity to explore how close  to
agreement those in  attendance might reach
with regard to such as:
   1.  What should be the recommended
      and accepted nomenclature for engi-
      neered ponds? Waste  stabilization
      ponds, oxidation ponds, lagoons?

   2.  What about  raw sewage ponds? Should
      they be accepted without reservation
      on a nation-wide basis? What is the
      concensus of opinion about ponds for
      secondary treatment?

   3.  Is there any common limiting criteria
      as to location, application, or opera-
      tion of ponds ?

   4.  What about  agreement on basic load-
      ing criteria?  Can the  unit of  loading
      be unified,  i.e. BOD per acre, ft.,
      population per acre, detention time?

   5.  What  is the  general opinion about one
      pond to satisfy the loading, as against
      a series of  ponds totaling the recom-
      mended loading?

   6.  Is there any common area of think-
      ing about recirculation?

   7.  Is there any unified accepted policy
      or practice  towards restrictions on
      pond effluent being discharged close
      to raw water intakes ?
                                             12

-------
  These are merely starting points which
might prove akin to a new type of chain re-
action.  Suffice it is to say, however,  it
seems entirely appropriate and timely that
such a movement toward unification be ini-
tiated by this group.

  The third objective we would like to see
achieved concerns  research, pure and ap-
plied. Undoubtedly many,  and perhaps
most, of the answers to present problems
lay in this  area; hence a listing of these
problems should be indicative of research
fields. In a number of instances  perhaps
plant scale studies with certain controls
would be adequate. As far as our experi-
ence with  ponds in Texas is concerned,
we feel the need for more knowledge along
the following lines:


  1. How can a clear effluent be produced?
     As previously mentioned, the algae
     green color of pond effluent continues
     to be the major objection to some
     users.  The search for the answer to
     this question poses a whole gamut of
     propositions varying from plant de-
     sign to the introduction of other
     forms of life.

  2.  We need the establishment  of simple
     control tests on ponds to indicate
     pond conditions, especially when
     trouble might be imminent.

  3.  We need a test to determine the
     amount of nutrient which should  be
  5.
  6.
  7.
added to assure proper biological life.
About all that is available now is the
old rule of thumb that one pound of
nitrogen will satisfy five pounds of
BOD.

We need more studies to determine
the correlation between pond per-
formance and temperature (air and
water) sunshine with the possibility
of using this data in forecasting pond
disturbances.

Studies are indicated concerning car-
bon-nitrogen-phosphorous ratios as
related to pond action.

Investigations  are urgently needed to
determine the  sanitary quality of pond
effluents. Bacterial removal, sur-
vival of virus, etc.

What is the limiting factor which
should control the discharge  of algae
laden effluent into a water course?
  These are at best, only a few of the
many challenges by this field of sewage
treatment.

  We from Texas are indeed  grateful for
the opportunity to present these thoughts to
this symposium. It is our sincere hope this
will be the beginning of a coordinated effort
to advance our technical and practical
knowledge of pond performance and opera-
tion so as to assure utilization for the
benefit of all.
                                          13

-------

-------
STUDIES OF RAW SEWAGE LAGOONS AT
FAYETTE, MISSOURI, 1958-59
WITH A RESUME OF 1957-58 OPERATIONS

By H. C. Clare, Joe K. Neel,
andC. A. Monday, Jr.*
This lagoon investigation project was
developed in 1956 when the Public Health
Service, the Missouri Division of Health,
and the City of Fayette, under took an investi-
gation of stabilization ponds to be fed Fayette
sewage. The Public HealthService and the
Division of Health subsidized cost of the ex-
perimental ponds; and the Service directed
and conducted studies. Controlled operation
began in May 1957.
DESCRIPTION

Fayette is situated in Central Missouri
about midway between Kansas City and St.
Louis (lat. 39° 08', long. 92O 40'). Eleva-
tion is 640' above msl. The 1950 popula-
tion was 3, 144 including approximately 400
resident students of Central College. The
sewered population has been estimated at
2, 700 and some seasonal variation coin-
cides with college schedules. Municipal
wastes include the normal small industries,
laundries, slaughter houses and locker
plants, etc. Floor washings from a "pig
parlor" or automatic hog feeding pen were
discharged to the municipal system in 1957
and 1958.
TREATMENT FACILITIES

The lagoon or "pond" installation is
shown in Figure 1. Sanitary sewer lines
shown by manholes end at a wet well from
whence sewage is pumped up to the dis-
tributor shown in Figure 2. A bypass line
extends from a manhole to the creek as in-
dicated. The piping system allows selec-
tive division of the sewage load among the
various units, series operation, etc. Sew-
age is apportioned to various units as de-
sired by dividing flow off the conical dis-
tributor apron with movable partitions. It
was necessary to install an annular orifice
around the upper part of the cone to secure
uniform distribution down the apron. Ex-
cess sewage passes through waste holes to
the 15-acre lagoon.

The five small ponds are each one acre
in area when filled to a depth of five feet,
and three-fourths acre each when liquid is
two and one-half feet deep. Two and one-
half feet is the minimum possible overflow
level, and the maximum operational depth
is about six feet. The large pond is fifteen
acres in area at its usual operating depth
of about three feet. It receives effluent
from the small ponds, and any raw sewage
not used in their controller! loadings.

A report covering the first 13 months'
operation (l) has been prepared and sub-
mitted for publication; however, for pur-
poses of this symposium, it appears ap-
propriate to briefly review findings
reported therein before entering into de-
tails of subsequent investigations.
SUMMARY 1957-58 OPERATIONS

Operation during the first phase involved
sewage division, retention, etc. shown
in Table 1. Average sewage flow was
0. 216 mgd and average B. O. D. load was
457 pounds per day.
LAGOON CONDITIONS

Sewage was turned into the lagoons in
November 1956. Algae quickly developed
in Cell 6, and in about one month in other
units which at first received intermittent
discharge. Chlamydomonas and Euglena
•Respectively, Regional Program Director and Regional Biologist, Water Supply and Pollution Control, Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare, Public Health Service, Region VI, Kansas City, Missouri, and Resident Biologist, Experimental Lagoon
Project, Fayette, Missouri.
15