Little much here - but maybe some of it will help. Doesn't look like the pictures copies over (and I'm not a techie to figure out how to do it) This is a direct copy over from a Google search result for United States sanitation history.
Minimal sanitary regulations were common in the American colonies by the late 1600s. For instance, in 1634, Boston officials prohibited disposing of fish and garbage near the common landing. During the mid- to late-1600s, additional regulations were developed to address pollution of Boston Harbor.10
Even though disease was quite prevalent during the 1700s, little was known about the cause of disease in humans; therefore, it was not evident that a significant portion of disease could be attributed to the unsanitary conditions of the day. Consequently, government played a minimal role in the development of sanitary systems and during much of the 1700s, American cities remained relatively unsanitary.11
The major trades of the era (soapmakers, tanners, and butchers) showed little concern with the impact disposal of their extremely noxious wastes had on the citizenry and the environment. Household waste disposal practices were primarily mirror images of those in England. Garbage was burned or simply dumped into the streets, alleys, and waterways; swine freely roamed the streets.12 By the mid-1700s, American households, to a limited extent, began digging refuse pits for disposal of their household wastes, rather than throwing the garbage into the streets and alleys.13 However, even as late as 1800, visitors to New York City described some parts of the City as a "nasal disaster" because of odors reminiscent of "bad eggs dissolved in ammonia." 14
While government showed little interest in development of waste management systems, a few people took on the cause individually. For instance, in 1739, Benjamin Franklin and his neighbors unsuccessfully petitioned the Pennsylvania Assembly to stop waste dumping and remove tanneries from Philadelphia's commercial district. Mr. Franklin also instituted the first municipal street cleaning service in Philadelphia in 1757. 15
1800s: "We know water pollution contributes to disease, so we need to tell people they can't put their garbage in or around water."
Even though large portions of the country remained rural in nature, America gradually became more urbanized during the 1800s. Yet, in spite of increased urbanization and improved scientific knowledge of the correlation between filth and disease, solid waste management practices remained largely unchanged.
As late as the Civil War, pigs, goats, and stray dogs were free to roam the streets as "biological vacuum cleaners." In fact, the need to have animals available to eat the garbage was such a concern that Charleston, West Virginia enacted an ordinance in 1834 to prohibit vulture hunting because they ate the city's garbage!16 The concept of a "public nuisance" also came into being in the early 1800s in order to alleviate, among other things, the visual problems with, and inconvenience of, odors and rotting wastes in the streets and on private property.17
Figure 1. Dumping waste at sea in New York Harbor, a common practice in 1880s.
The seeds of change were sown in mid-1800s England where sanitation theory (the theory that filth could contribute to human illness) began gaining popularity and gradually making its way to America.18,19 To address increasing public health concerns, local governments began setting standards for the protection of human health. The nation's first public health code was enacted in New York City in 1866.
By the late 1800s, America had developed a rather significant industrial base and her cities were becoming more urbanized. Because the correlation between filth and disease had become much more of a scientific certainty, local governments slowly became more involved with addressing proper sanitation, though most efforts focused on water and wastewater systems rather than waste management systems. Furthermore, America's expanding industrial base led to additional problems of increasing amounts of industrial waste to dispose. However, change was not to come easily as local politics, costs, or general public apathy frequently thwarted attempts to establish local sanitation controls. In any event, by the late 1800s, the germ theory of disease, and its correlation to sanitary conditions, was reaching its peak largely due to three epidemics in the 1870s.20
A cholera epidemic in the Mississippi Valley in 1873 killed approximately 3,000 people, while New Orleans and Memphis were both struck with yellow fever epidemics. Then, in 1878, the South was struck with the worst yellow fever epidemic in the Nation's history. Due in large part to these epidemics, the federal government finally began to realize it should play a roll in ensuring sanitation, and created a National Board of Health in 1879.21
Prior to the 1890s, there was little local government effort to provide an organized system for waste collection and disposal. As the 19th Century ended, the need for such a collection system was becoming apparent primarily due to four public concerns. First, as cities grew and America became a more consumer-oriented society, household wastes, ashes, horse droppings, street sweepings, and general rubbish were becoming more overwhelming problems for cities and individuals to manage. Secondly, the danger to public health from unsanitary conditions was firmly established. Third, both citizens and politicians realized that a clean city would attract businesses and create jobs which would, in turn, improve local economies. Fourth, local government involvement in public sanitary services was already well-established with water supplies and sewage management systems. Garbage collection was a natural extension of public services, and increasingly, local citizens began demanding solutions.22
Early 1900s - 1945: "With World War I, the Roaring '20s, the Great Depression, and World War II, who has time to worry about garbage?"
Figure 2. Early 1900s refuse collection wagon.
During the first half of the 20th Century, the primary local government challenge with respect to sanitary services was adapting those services to increased urbanization, urban sprawl, and demand for improved services to rural communities. To address these issues, local government focus, both from engineering and financial standpoints, was primarily on water supply and sewage management. Waste management was still relegated to third-class status despite dramatic increases in the amount of solid waste generated. Furthermore, the first half of the 20th Century was dominated by two World Wars and the Great Depression. Even though the effects of the government's lack of focus on waste management became apparent during the years between World War I and World War II, government concern with waste collection and disposal took a back seat to the Depression and World War II. Thus, no substantial change to waste management practices was seen.23
After World War I, the Nation's economic recovery was astounding. Technical innovations, mass production techniques, easy credit, and increased wages translated into a consumer society and an expanding middle class through the Roaring '20s, with a concurrent increase in solid waste to be managed. Municipalities began to realize some sort of citywide waste collection and disposal service was needed and began providing such services. But, by the late 1920s, waste collection and disposal costs had soared in the wake of expanding city limits, forcing local governments to begin looking for ways to curb those costs. Focus, however, was directed toward contracting out such services and implementing mechanized collection rather than development of integrated waste management systems. During this period, municipalities began using transfer stations to centralize wastes and use larger vehicles, barges, and railroads to transport waste from the transfer station to a disposal site.24
While more waste was being generated and more efficiently managed during the interwar years, land disposal was still the primary method of final disposition. Many locations had the city or town "dump" where its waste was disposed. Though easy to construct and relatively cheap to operate, the dumps were generally located near rivers and streams, where liquids and refuse from the dumps could easily enter the water and threaten water supplies. In addition, they were extremely unsanitary, attracted vermin, gave off repugnant odors, and were fire hazards. It was not until 1929 that the federal government issued the first location restriction for disposal sites by recommending, but not requiring, dumps to be located away from river banks.25
From the beginning of the Great Depression to the end of World War II, various state laws and court rulings prohibited certain disposal practices. For instance, in 1934, the United States Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling requiring New York City to cease disposal of its municipal waste at sea. In the 1930s, California passed laws prohibiting disposal of garbage within 20 miles of shore.26 While these actions may have helped remove refuse from the waters near America's shores, they did not address the real question, "What is the best way to manage solid waste?"
Interestingly, the concept of a "sanitary landfill" was being developed in Great Britain in the 1920s. The British called this practice "controlled tipping" from which the term "tipping fee" (the fee charged by landfill operators to dispose of waste at their facility) was probably coined. While open dumping had been practiced for years, the idea of a pseudo-engineered fill was quite unique. By alternating layers of waste and either soil or another non-putrefying material, the belief was that vermin populations, odors, and fires could be reduced, making land disposal less smelly and more "sanitary" and acceptable. The first modern "sanitary landfill" in the US built on the British design, began operation in Fresno, California in 1934. During the 1930s and '40s, momentum slowly shifted toward the use of sanitary landfills across the nation.27
Post-war Period - 1964: "With prosperity again, we really need to do something. But what?"
The post-war period in America was an era of unprecedented changes. World War II was over and America was largely untouched, the Baby Boom was on, and prosperity soared. New consumer goods made life easier: air conditioners kept our homes cool in the summer, central heat warmed us in the winter, electric refrigeration accelerated the development of pre-packaged, easy-to-prepare food, television introduced us to Lucy and Ricky, Detroit filled our desire for big, comfortable cars so we could travel on the new Interstate highway system, new pesticides and herbicides helped ensure bountiful crop yields and perfectly-manicured lawns, and our factories churned out everything we could consume. Urban sprawl increased as the new middle class moved to the suburbs. Concurrent with this new consumer society and increase in population was a drastic increase in the amount of solid waste generated.28 All of this waste had to be managed, leading municipalities to expand their collection efforts. To help cover the cost, new service charges and taxes were instituted.29
For most of the country, landfills continued to be the primary method for waste disposal. While collection and disposal responsibility rested primarily with local governments, cities were finding it increasingly difficult to manage the waste generated as populations, consumerism, and industry grew. Open dumps, with the resulting fires, odors, and vermin problems, were still in use in many locations. While it was becoming quite apparent that a national emphasis on waste management was needed, it was not until 1953 that any sort of recommended national guidelines for waste disposal sites were published. These guidelines were based, in part, on sanitary fill methods developed during World War II.30 Even with criteria in place, most of the nation was slow to adopt them. In 1956, only about 37% of the landfills in the country were making an effort to follow the guidelines.31
1965 - 1991: "It's time to change the focus of the waste management problem."
For 200 years, waste management concerns were addressed by answering the question, "What can't be done with garbage?" While answers to this question may have been adequate for a rural America, those answers were entirely inadequate to address increasing urbanization and the significant increases in solid waste to be managed. Because solid waste was here to stay, it was necessary for the nation to make a fundamental shift in its thinking by asking, "What can be done with garbage that will protect both health and the environment?"
Though the federal government had established a long history of oversight of water resources (e.g. the River and Harbor Act of 1886 and the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1948),32 it was not until 1965 that the federal government finally put the solid waste problem on par with protection of water resources. In that year, Congress passed the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA), the federal government's first effort to implement a comprehensive management framework for the nation's solid waste.33,34 The SWDA was designed to assist state and local governments with the technical and financial aspects of developing and managing waste disposal programs and to promote the development of guidelines for waste collection, transportation, recovery, and disposal.35,36 Amazingly, when the SWDA was passed, there were less than 10 full-time employees in state solid waste programs nationwide. Furthermore, no state had any real solid waste legislation; solid wastes were indirectly covered under health and nuisance statutes.37 Then, in 1970, Congress passed the Resource Recovery Act, shifting the emphasis of federal involvement from disposal to recycling, resource recovery, and conversion of waste to energy. It also stipulated that a national system for hazardous waste management be implemented.38,39 Also, in 1970, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was born. Solid waste management was now as great a national-level concern as water quality had been for many years.
In 1976, Congress expanded the federal government's roll in waste management by passing the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), to be implemented by EPA. The goals of RCRA were to protect the environment, conserve resources, and reduce the amount of waste being generated. RCRA was divided into various Subtitles, two of which dealt directly with waste management issues. Subtitle C required development of a comprehensive hazardous waste management scheme to ensure those wastes were safely managed from the moment they were generated until final disposal (affectionately known as "cradle-to-grave"). Subtitle D was designed to deal with disposal of non-hazardous wastes and ensure non-hazardous waste disposal sites were constructed in a manner to greatly reduce environmental impacts.40
In 1980, in response to RCRA Subtitle C, EPA promulgated its first regulations for the management of hazardous waste. The regulations implemented several requirements: identification of solid and hazardous wastes, standards for generators of hazardous waste, standards for transporters of hazardous waste, standards for hazardous waste disposal facilities, and requirements that must be met to receive permits to operate a hazardous waste disposal facility. While specific details regarding the standards are well beyond the scope of this article, the standards clearly spelled out the cradle-to-grave management goal for hazardous waste.
In 1984, Congress amended RCRA by passing the Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). HSWA not only put into effect tough, new requirements for hazardous waste management and disposal, but also mandated that EPA develop criteria for new solid waste landfills to drastically reduce the likelihood that new Superfund sites would be created due to poorly constructed and operated landfills. Thus, in 1991 EPA promulgated a regulatory framework for the construction and operation of landfills receiving municipal solid waste. The criteria required all existing municipal waste landfills in the nation to either: (1) install a comprehensive groundwater and gas monitoring program, establish financial assurance to ensure funds were available for proper closure and monitoring after closure, and meet certain operational requirements; or (2) close. New landfills were required to be constructed with an engineered liner system capable of preventing landfill liquids from migrating into groundwater, in addition to implementing the groundwater and gas monitoring, financial assurance, and more stringent operational requirements. From a regulatory standpoint, the "open dump" was finally history.
1978 - 1980: "Uh, Washington? New York here. We have a problem."
Even with new federal authority over waste issues, one event would thrust historical waste management practices to the nation's attention as never before, demonstrating that the historical idea of "out of sight, out of mind" was not the best approach to waste management. Due almost entirely to this event, the federal government began taking an even greater role in environmental protection.
In 1836, the U. S. government was searching for a location to construct a canal between Lakes Erie and Ontario in upstate New York. The Government found an ideal location, but nothing came of the study until May 1892 when a gentleman named William Love took an interest in the site. Mr. Love's plan was to build an industrial city with cheap power provided by a canal connecting the upper and lower Niagara River. Unfortunately, financial problems resulted in Mr. Love abandoning the project, and the partially completed canal was sold in 1920. For over 30 years, the canal was the dumping ground for municipal garbage and chemical wastes from the City of Niagara, New York and surrounding municipalities. Finally, in 1953, the site was covered with soil and sold to the Niagara school system for one dollar.41,42
Over the ensuing years, a school and an entire neighborhood of private homes were built on top of and around the canal. Then, in 1978 after a record rainfall, toxic chemicals began to leak from the old canal into the yards and basements of the community. The Love Canal problem was thrust into the national spotlight as President Carter declared the entire area a disaster area, releasing emergency funds to evacuate the citizens.43
In 1980, directly in response to the Love Canal debacle, Congress passed the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or more-commonly known as Superfund). Its purpose was to implement a national response for problems resulting from past hazardous waste management practices, to impose liability on those entities creating the problem, and to remediate contaminated soils and groundwater caused by those practices. CERCLA also imposed various taxes on chemical and petroleum industries, which were deposited into a trust fund (hence, the name "Superfund") to be used for remediations initiated under its provisions.
OKLAHOMA - When statutes identified specific, prohibited disposal practices, they typically were directed toward prevention of water pollution or the spread of disease to animals or humans, rather than attempt to develop a comprehensive waste management protocol. For example, in Oklahoma Territory it was unlawful to:
· "[throw] gas tar, or refuse of any gas house or factory into any public waters, river, or stream, or into any sewer or stream emptying into any such public water, river, or stream;"45
· "[dispose] of any article of food, drink, drug, or medicine [known to be] tainted, decayed, spoiled, or otherwise unwholesome or unfit to be eaten or drank with intent [that the material be consumed] by any person or animal;"46
· "put any dead animal, carcass, or part thereof, into any well, spring, brook, or branch of running water [used for] domestic purposes...[or] into any river, creek, or pond;" 47or
· "put any dead animal or any part of a carcass of a dead animal in any road, street, alley, lane, lot, field meadow, common or school section, without burying [at least two feet deep]."
