RIVER POLLUTION.

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16427, 22 January 1919, Page 5

RIVER POLLUTION.

DISPOSAL OF TRADE EFFLUENTS

Matters connected with the disposal of effluents froui tanneries and woolscouring works, especially as bearing on the pollution of the river Heath cote, were discussed at last night's meoting of the Drainage Board. The Board's inspector (Mr T. Tomlinson) reported .that the customary inspection was made last month. As the Board was aware, the Woolston Tanneries Co., Ltd., had made the conrexion to the river from their new sedimentation tanks; the tanks had been brought into use and promised to be a big advance on anything previously ' tried. The manager was carrying. out a scheme to prevent- the aeration of the effluent as it discharged into the river. "With this improvement the inspector was of opinion that the scheme should ijrove satisfactory. The offluonts from tCtt other wolks were on a par with what the inspector had stated in recent reports. The report was adopted. Consideration was subsequently given to the report submitted at a previous meeting by the Board's engineer (Mr E. Cuthbert) giving estimates of two schemes for the disposal of the effluents from the Woolston works. The first provided for the effluents being conveyed by a pipe line, and discharged into the estuary, the estimated cost being £18,4G0; the second proposed that the effluents should he similarly conveyed and discharged on the Board's sewage farm (or other area to be acquired), the estimated cost beiug £33,983. Mr S. A. Staples moved that consideration be deferred for a month.

Mr C. Hill, as an amendment, moved . "That the report bo submitted to a conference of representatives of I tho proDrietors of the works and of tho Board. ,T He said that it would bo wrong to let the matter rest where it was at present: he considered that the engineer had hit upon tho right Eolution. It vas a matter for the proprietors of the works to investigate and. referring to .1 statement previously made- that tho District Health j OfSeer wa» opposed to Xo. 1 scheme, • he said ht; did not see why 3>r. Chesson j ' bhould attempt to block the scheme, j Mr H. Holland seconded pro forma, I and said that having been responsible for the preparation of the report, the > cost of the No. 1 scheme was a great ' deal more than he had had in his mind at the time; the cost cf the Xo. 2 scheme made it impracticable. Profitable as the wool-scouring and tanning industries were, they were not profit- , | able enough to stand a burden such as I

the adoption of either scheme would involve.

The chairman (Mr H. J. Otley) said that at the previous conference between representatives of tho Board and of the proprietors of tho works, a certain procedure was agreed -upon, and one firm , was carrying out what was agreed upon, the understanding being that if the scheme adopted by the firm referred to was successful, the other firms would adopt it. He thought it would be a fair thing to seo whether the scheme was successful. Mr Hill, in reply, contended that the scheme' being given effect to by the firm referred to was different from the one agreed upon at the conference. He did not think that the Board was at present concerned with the question of the expense of either scheme —it was for the proprietors of the works to consider whether or not the expense was excessive. Unless something were done, tjicve was the possibility of the worlcs being closed: in view of that contingency, tho proprietors might consider the expenso of one or other scheme preferable to closing; down. He asserted that the district in the vicinity of the works was not fit to live in, and, in his opinion, it was a disgrace, not only to the whole of Christchurch, but to tho Board in particular, that the present state of things should have been allowed to go on so long. 'The amendment was negatived, and the motion, deferring consideration for a month, was ■ agreed to.