REPORT OF COMMISSION

Sun (Auckland), Volume II, Issue 605, 6 March 1929, Page 16

REPORT OF COMMISSION

SAFEGUARDING MEASURES Viewing with apprehension the pollution of the Waitemata and Manukau Harbours by the several sewerage schemes emptying into their waters, the Auckland Harbour Board in 1927 urged a commission of inquiry. The Government later deputed Mr. L. B. Campbell, district engineer of the Public Works Department, and Dr. H. Chesson. medical officer of health, to investigate the situation and make recommendations. Their report yesterday came before the Harbour Board, with a covering letter from the Minister of Health. In substance the findings were tiiat it was necessary to co-ordinate the various local bodies and trade interests and the schemes already in operation. This had been done as far as the administration was concerned in the city and districts on the southern shore of the Waitemata Harbour by the creation of the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board. The same must be done with regard to the Manukau. The two officers made the following recommendations: (1) That the contributing district of the Auckland City and Suburban Drainage Board be extended to include the Oneliunga borough, Ellerslie town district and One Tree Hill, Mount Roskill and Mount Wellington road districts, Otahuhu borough, part of the Manukau County. New Lynn, Henderson, Glen Eden and the southern portion of the Waitemata County. L2.) That as the North shore boroughs are separated from Auckland City” and its suburbs by the Waitemata Harbour, and have drainage problems of a different character, it is not advisable to bring

these boroughs under the jurisdiction of the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board. We therefore recommend the establishment of aI J rth £ oj re Borougus Drainage Board, comprising representatives of Devonport, Takapuna. Northcote and Birkenhead Boroughs, and part of the Waitemata County. The constitution of this board could be on the same basis as that of the Auckland and Suburban Drainage Board. (3) That the problem in Auckland demands the services of an engineer experienced in the most modern methods of sewage disposal, including treatment processes not yet practised in New Zealand; but we do not think the best result would be obtained by bringing an expert from the Old World, as such a man would not be familiar with local conditions, either physical or financial, and, moreover, might be predisposed toward one or other of the many systems in use or being developed in Europe and America. We consider the best result would be obtained by sending the present engineer to the Auckland City and Suburban Drainage Board, Mr. H. H. Watkins, on a visit to Great Britain, Europe, Canada, United States of America, and possibly other countries to investigate processes in the treatment of sewage, which might be suitable for Auckland and New Zealand generally.

This engineer could then design a scheme for the enlarged Auckland and suburban drainage district, knowing that the future operation of the system would be his own responsibility. It could also be arranged that this engineer would act as consulting engineer to/ the suggested North Shore boroughs board, concludes the report.

In his letter the Minister of Health, the Hon. A. J. Stallworthy, said the first and second recommendations were enaorsed by the department. On the third there was no comment to make. In the meantime the department’s endeavour had been to bring about cooperation of the various local authorities with the object of establishing one drainage authority. Hopes of reaching an agreement on those lines had not been abandoned, but, if necessary, there was power under the Health Act to set up a commission to consider the matter. The board could subsequently use its coercive powers to carry out the recommendations of such a commission. However, the Minister hoped extreme steps would not be necessary'.