The epidemic of 1798 took the lives of 2,000 New Yorkers. Writing to Noah Webster, Dr. Samuel L. Mitchill, one of the City's leading men of science, blamed urban conditions for the outbreak: "New York tliis time has a plague indeed. The scourge is applied severely and cuts deep.... It seems to be admitted on all sides to be a home-bred Pestilence. The inhabitants have really poisoned their city by the accumulation of Excrement, putrid Provisions, and every unclean thing." Prominent citizens who investigated that epidemic offered a series of recom- mendations for preventing similar outbreaks in the future, and a water system was among the most important: "In suggesting the means of removing the causes of pestilential diseases, we consid- er a plentiful supply of water as one of the most powerful, and earnestly recommend that some plan for its introduction into this city, be carried into execution as soon as possible."^ If any citizens still doubted the connection between "pure and wholesome water" and the City's disease environment, the cholera epidemic of 1832 provided convincing evidence. When news came that the dreaded disease had appeared in Montreal, all knew that it was only a matter of weeks before it arrived in New York. Anticipat- 12 ing the worst, the city government embarked on a radical street cleaning campaign. A contemporary noted with amazement: "The first thorough cleaning she ever had, was in the summer of that year; and for this cleansing the cholera is to be thanked .... For the first time, within the memory of living man, the stones of the pave- ments every where showed their heads ... they were first scraped and swept clean; and the filth carted away. Despite the unprecedented precautions, the epidemic arrived in late June and spread rapidly, especially in the poorer districts which relied on badly polluted wells. Wealthier residents left the City for the duration. Former mayor Philip Hone removed his family to Rockaway in July. "The disease is here in all its violence and will increase," he wrote in his diary. "God grant that its ravages may be confined, and its visit short!"'' By the time the epidemic subsided in October, there had been almost 3,000 fatalities of nearly 6,000 reported cases, and as many as 100,000 New Yorkers fled the City for outlying vil- lages. By contrast, the epidemic was far less severe in Philadelphia, which suffered only 900 dead. The difference was accounted for by the liberal use of water to wash the streets, a health measure possi- ble only because in 1822, Philadelphia had become the first American city to complete a municipal water system.* Even before the end of the 18th century, the need for a reliable stream of water had become a public issue in New York, not only to protect the health and welfare of the citizenry, but also to ensure the City's commercial supremacy. In 1798, the New York Daily Advertiser asked: "Citizens of New York, what are you doing? ... If you procrastinate, you are ruined; while you are immersed in busi- ness or sunk in pleasure, careless of the future, other towns, your rivals in trade, have vigorously begun the most effectual measures of precaution."^ Public wells and pumps were long established in the City, the first dating from 1658. By 1809, there were 249 public wells, but the quality was uniformly poor. The tea-water pump, for example, was dug in 1797 (figure 7). The well was 20 feet deep and four feet around, and yielded about 110 hogsheads (130 gallons each) daily. The water was sold door to door for a penny a gallon. Despite its popularity, however, the tea-water was far from pure, for it was located near the Collect. The Collect, the once-pristine pond located at what is now Foley Square, was polluted beyond redemption (figure 8). As early as 1798 it was described as a "shocking hole, where all impure things center together and engender the worst of unwholesome produc- tions." For years it had been used as a dumping ground for house- hold garbage, sewage, and dead animals. Once on the outskirts of the City, the pond had by the early 19th century been enveloped by it, and the backyard privies in the adjacent neighborhood leached their noxious contents into the soil, contaminating the rainwater that filtered through and drained into it. In 1809 a canal was dug to the Hudson to drain the Collect and the spring-fed marshes near Broadway. By 1815, the Collect had disappeared, but Canal Street remained. '° Writing after completion of the Croton system. Dr. Charles A. Lee concluded that without the new aqueduct, the City's water sup- ply would have soon been inadequate, for the quality had been steadily deteriorating for decades: figure 7. above: The Tea Water