Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

7 articles on this Page

POLLUTION OF THE DEE. ■0

News
Cite
Share

POLLUTION OF THE DEE. ■ 0 ENQUIRY AT CHESTER. "WELSH AUTHORITIES AND THE CHESTER WATER SUPPLY. On Thursday, Dr. Bruce Low and Mr. F. H. Tulloch, the commissioners appointed by the Local Government Board, sat at Chester Castle to consider the application made by the Cheshire County Council, conjointly with the Flintshire County Council and the Chester Corporation, for a provisional order constituting a joint committee to enforce the Rivers Pollu- tion Prevention Act, 1876, throughout the watershed of the Dee. Mr. E. H. Lloyd appeared on behalf of the Cheshire County Council; Mr. G. A. R. FitzGerald, for the Chester Corporation, which was represented by the Town Clerk (Mr. S. Smith) and several members, including the Mayor (Mr. B. C. Roberts) Mr. S. Moss, M.P., appeared for the Chester Waterworks Company; and the "opposition was led by Dr. Pankhurst, for the Denbighshire County Council and the Urban and Rural Councils of Llangollen, Edeyrnion, and Uchaled. The Council Chamber, in which the inquiry was held, was crowded with Numerous representatives of other authorities interested, including the Flintshire County Council, the Shropshire County Council, the Merionethshire County Council, and urban rura,l sanitary authorities at Hawarden, 7**old, Holywell, St. Asaph, Oswestry, Wrexham, -"•arvin, and Malpas. .g Mr. HONORATUS LLOYD, in opening the case the applicants, said the Rivers Pollution revention Act of 1876 did not obviously go enou"k iQ its machinery, because steps ere practically limited to be taken by the anitary authorities within whose district the ■Pollution took place. That that was a short- ^o^iing of the Act with reference to streams *hich passed through more than one district became very soon obvious, and a further ex- "tension of jurisdiction was granted to County Councils, yet the same difficulty remained in case of a stream like the Dee, running through more than one county. As to whether be river was polluted or not, the report of r* Bruce Low upon that point could not be otradicted, and he thought bis opponents have a very hard task before them if they C aXoure(^ to remove from the minds of the *adltni8sioners ^a°t that pollution did exist j would exist unless steps were taken, j Mediately the Cheshire County Council came th on the passing of the Act of 1888, j at once became conscious of the additional j y that had been placed upon them with I-IL enco to the purification of streams, and joined with Lancashire in obtaining the ^sional order and Act of Parliament which »i^blished the Mersey and Irwell Committee. Q that, in November, 1895, the Cheshire °Unty Council appointed Dr. Vacher as e<«cal officer of health for the county, and °f the duties prescribed for that gentleman th ^ea,l with the matters of pollution in .« Various streams and rivers in the county, y report thereon to the County Council. Dr. j^acher had not dealt in detail with the river because during the course of his investiga- l<oQ' k0 bad the benefit of seeing Dr. Bruce w s report, to which nothing could be added. Cort. rePort was laid before the Rivers Pollution '*t»d mittee of the Council on the 1st May, 1896, Resolution was then passed instructing ijoarH to inform the Local Government titn« L *be report then issued was the first a^i ^heir attention had been called to the j>ie Us condition of affairs, and they wero Colo .acquiesce in the formation of a Wte to deal with it. On the 19th June a 6eCt Was received from Mr. Adrian, assistant ^hiciTuy to the Local Government Board, in the g suggested that it would be best, in C°Un/Sfc iQstance, to communicate with ot her •joij.4. y councils concerned, with a view to a ouc application being made. That was at a<*opted by the Cheshire County Council, Of J* letter to that effect was written to each ^fci County councils by their clerk, Mr. C^Li^d Potts. A conference was held at f' Castle on the 12th April last, when a Q affirming the expediency of the tio,^ interested jointly concurring in peti- Bocal Government Board was ■•hC1 by Cheshire, Denbighshire, Merioneth- shire' a°d the borough of Chester, while Flint- against it, and Shropshire refrained ot,ing. The second and third resolutions Pu^' dealt with the questions of ^8<Oti0n an<^ representation, and it was that in the opinion of the conference it k? ^bat representation should sJ&sjP0r^oneci as follows:—Cheshire 3, Den- ^opSL.re 5, Flintshire 3, Merionethshire 1, Th* anci Chester 6, making a total of >6P*eg resolution was supported by the ^Cepj-^atives of all the councils with the Denbighshire, who did not vote, a disagreement among its representa- V* L "be contribution he need not dilate it followed exactly t'.ie percentage ^Presentation. After that Che matter 0Psh^°^ 'be vari°us county councils. JT'W nlre now asked to be omitted from the to the very small area of their Jud 1^u^e<J in the watershed of the Dee, 3u llder n by the experience of Derbyshire 10tI ilar circumstances, in the case jl'at th6 f Mereey and Irwell, he argued l bnbit>u6 would be a great mistake. As to fS although they were a little ^iginaij ,s*eeP by the favourable attitude th V*keH UP by that county, they now conf ~enbighshire joined Shropshire in that the present powers were p t° meet the case. They knew that in *t those powers had not been exercised ,n<* if a majority of representation was the j; those counties at the upper part of StiH Ver' would result in the Act remaining ■<W a dead-letter. The Cheshire County C0t^Cil had recognised that the Chester ^^Poration had an interest in the Dee far over above the others—that was to say although t *ere commonly interested with Cheshire *io*i -6 other counties in minimising the pollu- 1 .^e'^nn rid of the terrible state of the exi3ted, they were also interested thft ct that they took their water supply th^ t%coo^er" Cheshire County Council con ^a^^ised that under those circumstances ^Co., which was a separate We belonging to the Corporation, must ila^6 °arriZi derive benefit if their proposals beh»out, and he thought the company Wo by DO means unfairly in the o appreciating the benefits which upon them, the Waterworks -v. Poaij:4^ the same time dreaded the key of b» r con°n- being left in the hands of the in and they were therefore pre- 6 event of the majority of the o ^ties 5l0n being in the hands of the lower H ? ^ct |hf Sllbscribe half the cost of putting Ik! operation for the first three years, £ 500 a year, and afterwards in bl,lt Cq y one-third of the expenses of the Wink. not exceeding £ 300 a year. tf atiVe t; disabuse the minds of the repre- the8-°^ 8°me of the counties interested |0°^cU a l^Pression that the Cheshire County the the Corporation of Chester were h thin r^°ses this matter one and the I'be county which he represented VK^ative 111 beginning to end on its own Och tj, It strenuously opposed the Bill Chester Corporation promoted last and to erecting sluices on the TV68 wifvT° ac1uiring powers to deal them- obi ,a^ offences in all parts of the river. & thrted Chester's having sole control c^ste<j Pollution of the river, and they sug- M^lHitt 16 alternative scheme of a joint n, the r\6e county councils in the watershed iQ eshireee. The Bill was thrown out, and the 14 ire %ty authority took the initiative t oitlt nl!1 the Local Government Board to G Chent ^0int committee. To suggest that County Council and the Chester e otj, 1011 were acting in concert as against counties was, therefore, untrue and fihd byfacts- tfWicati witness called in support of the waa Mr. Reginald Potts, Clerk to br '°U i?lre County Council, who said in his °vi§ion Was n°t possible to carry out the s the Act of 1876 in its entirety in o^t 0j as the Dee, without the appoint- ^be committee having jurisdiction watershed area. M be w amined by Dr. PANKHURST, Mr. Potts boH n°^ aware that Chester discharged th(» untreated sewage into the Dee taljjv. Weir. He understood that the city V6 to deal more efficiently with co»af Wag.e> an<i furthermore that they .With ructing an intercepting sewer to iltel.. all the sewage on the south side of Is not the main reason for this enquiry and for the setting up of a joint committee to benefit the waterworks of Chester ?—Emphati- cally no. Is it not to enable the Waterworks Company to evade the duty of taking their supply from another source besides the Dee ?-No, it is not, but I may say in my opinion it is an additional reason why a joint committee should be formed. Was not the Sluices Bill mainly promoted in the interests of the Waterworks Company to keep the Dee water pure as a supply to the city of Chester ?-I think it was promoted more in the interests of the inhabitants of Chester. Was not that because the inhabitants of Chester doubted the purity of the Dee water as a water supply ?—The Corporation and the Waterworks Company, I have no doubt, wanted to allay the suspicion that had arisen as to the water supply. Further examined, Mr. POTTS said the Chester Corporation had taken every possible step with a view to preventing pollution, and had made complaints to offending sanitary authorities. Mr. LLOYD: Did the Waterworks make any application to you, or was it on the joint appli- cation of the County Councils that the Water- work s'contrib ution was made ?-Mr. Potts: Yes, the Waterworks Company made no application whatever to us. The conference passed a reso- lution appointing a sub-committee to interview the Waterworks Company and arrange terms with them. So that this is not an application made by the County Council at the instigation of the Water Company, but an application made by them upon their own responsibility, and they having invited the Water Company to contribute ?- Yes. In answer to Mr. T. T. Kelly, clerk to the Flintshire County Council, Mr. Potts said his Council considered that the authorities at the lower part of the river ought to have a greater interest in maintaining its purity than the counties higher up, and consequently they ought to have a greater representation, and pay a larger contribution. The place of meeting would be settled by the Joint Committee when constituted. The next witness was Mr. T. W. Killick, J.P., vice-chairman of the Cheshire County Council, representative of Cheshire on the Rivers Mersey and Irwell Joint Watershed Committee, and chairman of the consultative committee of that joint committee. He was strongly of opinion that to enforce the Act of 1876 it was better to work with a joint committee than to work by separate authorities. He adduced statistics with reference to the district of the Mersey and Irwell Committee, to shew the far more satis- factory work that was done under that joint authority than was possible before. With reference to representation, he thought that the communities who drank the water should have a greater voice in the enforcement of the law than those who did not. Cross-examined by Dr. PANKHURST: You gave us a list of works that you had caused to be set up in your Mersey and Irwell Joint Com- mittee jurisdiction. Don't you know that the manufacturers along the course of that river are up in arms against your committee for your exactions upon them?—Witness: No, I do not. I think I may state that the manufacturers within the area of our jurisdiction have met the committee in a very handsome and full manner. You don't know of a society formed to oppose your exactions and unreasonable processes ?—I know a society was formed, or it was called, but I don't know whether it has ever taken any action. Do you know that Manchester feels so much your exactions that it is going to Parliament to get out of your juriidiction ?-Yes, that is so, but why ? Is it not because of your unreasonable exactions ? Is not that what they say ?—Yes, what they say, but what we deny. What you say, but what we deny ? (Laughter.) Is it not a fact that you have only succeeded in the case of small authorities ?—No, it is not a fact. Do you justify Chester in using the Dee water for drinking purposes ?—I have no opinion on the question. My position is this, that every authority should treat its sewage, and that no authority should turn its sewage into a stream, whether used for a water supply or not. Is it not a fact that the interest in the water in Chester is simply to make it fit for drinking purposes ?—That is the reason why I think Chester should contribute more. Are all the rights above Chester to be con- ditioned in order to make the water of Chester drinkable by the people of Chester ?—No, they are not to be conditioned, but no authority above Chester has a right to sin against the law. I want the law put into force. Do you think it is a proper thing to build up a private enterprise by imposing obligations on riparian owners or riparian authorities ?—The obligations exist, and I think if you can get from a private company a contribution towards the relief of the rates, you are doing very good business. Evidence having also been given in support of the application by Dr. Vacher, medical officer of health for Cheshire, and Mr. H. S. Wnalley, surveyor, Mr. FITZGERALD, on behalf of the Chester Corporation, said he did not propose to call any witnesses, but he addressed the Com- missioners at some length upon the importance to Chester of having an administrative body over the whole watershed. There was an invitation on the part of the Legislature to constitute joint committees, and if councils interested in a particular river applied for the constitution of a joint committee he shouldiventure to say that the granting of it was almost a foregone conclusion. He sub- mitted that the apathy or even antipathy of one or two councils ought not to be a bar to bringing the whole of the watershed within the jurisdiction of a single strong representative authority. The borough of Chester at present discharged no sewage whatever into the Dee above the weir, and was now undertaking works which would have the effect of removing the sewage which at present went into the tidal estuary below the weir to land for the purposes of irrigation on the other side of the river. Since the Act of 1876 the Corporation had used very strenuous endeavours to put pressure upon the local authorities higher up the river, and had even, he was afraid, worried the Local Government Board with their impor- tunity. The constitution of this joint committee was the only remedy for a great and admitted evil. Chester had drawn its water supply from the Dee from time immemorial, and it was ludicrous to contend therefore that the borough had not a greater interest in the purity of the river than any of the other riparian counties. There were certainly among the opponents of that application people who said We seek representation on this Board to ensure that I nothing shall be done." Dr. PANKHURST My friend has no warrant for such an imputation as that. I Mr. FITZGKRALD Have you seen a document called a memorial addressed to district councils in Flintshire, Denbighshire, Merionethshire, and Shropshire ? Dr. PANKHURST: No. Mr. FITZGKRALD: Well, I don't think if such a contention were raised it would find favour with the Local Government Board. Mr. Moss, M.P., next addressed the Com- missioners on behalf of the Waterworks Company, whose hands, he said, had been rather forced by the action of the joint conference in April last. While the company knew that they were supplying water of the purest character, it had been represented to them that it would be an advantage to have any suspicion against the water removed, and from that point of view they thought it would be worth their while to co-operate heartily with those who were moving in this matter. They attached, however, a condition to their contribution, namely, that the representation of Chester and of Cheshire should be such as to guarantee to the company the effectual carrying out of the provisions of the Act. Mr. ELWT WILLIAMS, chairman of the Flint- shire County Council, said the eyes of the representatives of that body had been consider- ably opened with respect to the position of the Chester Waterworks Company, and they wished the matter to remain in abeyance until they had had a further opportunity of consulting the Flintshire Council as a whole. Dr. BRUCK Low: You object on the score of the Waterworks Company being benefited by the scheme ? Mr. WILLIAMS There is no doubt the Water- works Company is interested, and the authorities are woven together. They want to rule the roost. (Laughter.) Mr. T. T. KELLY (clerk to the Flintshire County Council) said they would not be satisfied with the proposed constitution of the committee, and would make direct representa- tions to the Local Government Board on the subject. Mr. J. B. MARSTON, chairman of the Mold Urban Sanitary Authority, urged that that body had already spent X6,900 on a new sewerage scheme, and they objected to being handed over to the tender mercies of the Chester people. There were several other speakers in opposi- tion to the proposal, and Dr. Pankhurst, who did not call any evidence, characterised the applica- tion as an attempt to saddle the authorities on the upper reaches of the Dee with the cost for the purification of the river water for the benefit of a private concern, the Chester Waterworks Company. It was an attempt, he said, to escape the alternative of a fresh source of supply for the city of Chester. The Waterworks Company were in this difficulty. They had been setting up before the quiescent and quiet people of Chester year after year that the water they supplied was pure, and that there was no pollution in the river. Was that con- sistent with their contention to-day that the river was so polluted that they must have a joint committee ? The suggestion by Mr. FitzGerald that there were authorities up the river that did not care what they did in the way of pollution was odious and detestable, but was it not more odious and detestable when it came from the most flagrant offender down the stream P He never heard before of a private company being joined in prosecutions by con- tributing expenses, and he should like to see Parliament asked whether that was the kind of thing it approved of. Llangollen had a separate water supply, and it was a very dangerous state of things that the city of Chester persisted in drinking the river water. (Applause.) He could not help being a little vehement on the subject when he saw the effect of the epidemic at Maidstone, and when it was known that perhaps the most exclusive source of the epidemic was the water carriage of the germs which destroyed human life. Personally, he should not sleep comfortably in his bed with the newspaper from Maidstone before him if he had to drink the water from the Dee. It was quite clear that the motive which set up this inquiry was a sinister motive; it was not a motive in the broad public interests, and powers ought not to be withdrawn from com- petent public bodies to serve the interests of a private concern. (Applause.; Denbighshire and the authorities he represented had already sufficient powers, and were ready and willing to put them in force. They had not exercised them before because they had not known the urgent need for their exercise. Why had not they been since 1888 more vigilant ? Because it was not until Dr. Bruce Low's report of the 9th January, 1896, that any complaint whatever was made of the pollution of the River Dee. How could the County Council of Cheshire come now and say that the powers of Denbighshire and other authorities up the Dee were not suffi- cient, and would not be exercised when they from January, 1895, having been asked by the Local Government Board to make application to those authorities higher up, never made any application at all ? He submitted that the case for the order had entirely broken down, and that the authorities he represented, who would henceforth be found a diligent and effective body, should be left masters of their own destiny. (Applause.) Mr. LLOYD Are you going to call any wit- nesses ? Dr. PANKHURST: No. Exercising my own judgment, and believing that the case for the applicants has not boon made out, I have advised that my clients tender no evidence, but I intimate that they will resist any order finally imposing a joint committee on those authorities. Mr. TULLOCH Do you mean they would oppose in Parliament ? Dr. PANKHURST: Yes. We should take the proper means to prevent the order from becoming final. Mr. E. STANLEY CLARKE, on behalf of the Rural Sanitary Authority of the Wrexham Union, opposed the application, on the ground of insufficient notice having been given to that body, and also objected to the constitution of the Commission, in view of the fact that the matter had already been prejudged in Dr. Bruce Low's report. (Applause.) He also protested against a wealthy, populous city like Chester wishing to impose obligations on their neigh- bours for the purpose of saving expense, when they ought, as every other public-spirited com- munity would do, to put their hands into their own pockets, and provide a proper water supply. Mr. E. H. LLOYD, in reply, expressed surprise that not a shred of evidence had been adduced in opposition to the application. The previous speaker, who objected to the constitution of the present tribunal, appeared, like many others in the room, suffering under a misapprehension. The object of the present inquiry was not to ascertain whether pollution did or did not exist; it was to consider whether there were fresh steps necessary in order to take proper precautions to prevent pollution either now or hereafter. It was very curious that the authorities represented by Dr. Pank- hurst who were now so eager and anxious to be up and doing, had done so little since the pass- ing of the Act. He confessed he was utterly unable to understand the position of several of the Welsh councils. Flintshire and Denbigh- shire who were once in favour of the scheme were now opposed to it, but it was evident they did not know their own minds for two days together,and their conduct in the matter was another reason for notentrusting them with a preponderating voice on the committee. As to the contention that the Cheshire County Council had themselves taken no steps to prevent pollution, the fact that they had brought about that inquiry was sufficient evidence of their activity. Dr. Pankhurst alleged that the Cheshire County Council, the Chester Cor- poration, and the Waterworks Company were acting in collusion, but the suggestion, as had been proved by sworn evidence, was absolutely without foundation, and Dr. Pankhurst asked the Commissioners simply on his own ipse dixit to say that what had been testified on oath was untrue. He also thought it right to suggest, when he knew the mouths of the Waterworks Company were closed at that period of the case, that the water was absolutely unwholesome, and he introduced an allusion to Maidstone. He dared not, how- ever, call a single witness to substantiate his allegations, and to make use of such state- ments, when unsupported by evidence, was both unprofessional and improper. As to the subscription of the Waterworks Company, Dr. Pankhurst seemed totally ignorant of the exis- tence of a parallel case, but one did exist none the less, for Parliament had provided by the Thames Conservancy Acts that the London Water Company should pay no less than X25,000 a year towards the expense of keeping pollution out of the river. Dr. fjgUCB iow, at me conclusion or a pro- tracted inquiry, said: We have heard a large amount of evidence and a good deal of specula- tion as well, and it will be unnecessary for me to add anything to what has been said. The objections under the scheme seem to be based upon, firstly, representation; secondly, upon the probable and necessary expense the scheme would entail, and there seems to be a certain amount of jealousy of the city of Chester and the Water Company; and, thirdly, there seems to be a distrust between the upper parts of the river and populations on the lower parts. Whether these are substantial facts or they are mere passing opinions it would take some time to shew. This large amount of evidence that has been submitted will take some time to .digest, and when my colleague and myself have had an opportunity of digesting it and drawing it out on paper, it will be pre- sented to the Board, who will send you the result of the deliberations. VIGOROUS PROTEST BY RUTHIN I COUNCIL. At a special meeting of the Ruthin Rural District Council, on Monday, Mr. Owen Williams presiding, the Clerk (Mr. R. Humphreys Roberts) drew attention to the fact that he did not receive notice of the Government inquiry at Chester in reference to the proposed forma- tion of a joint board to prevent the pollution of the river Dee and its tributaries, until it was too late to consult the Council upon the matter, or he should have advised that they should send either himself or counsel to oppose the pro- posed provisional order. He, however, attended the inquiry on October 7th, although he had no authority to do so. The whole scheme was intended to save a private company from the expense of seeking a new source of water supply, and it would entail a large cost upon the districts which had already obtained water supplies other than the rivers. He feared that an order would be made, but he thought strenuous efforts should be made by Denbighshire to oppose it.—Mr. Thomas Jones said it seemed to him the Cheater people wanted the three Welsh counties to pay for purifying their water.—The Clerk said it practically came to that.—After a discussion, the Council passed a resolution to the following effect, on the motion of Mr. Thomas Jones, seconded by Mr. E. T. Jones That the Council protest against the short notice given of the inquiry, and no order should be made until all the districts had had due notice and the opportunity of being heard." All complaints with reference to this district in Dr. Bruce Low's report had as far as practicable been remedied. Dr. Bruce Low, being the inspector who reported to the Local Govern- Board, should not have been one of the com- missioners to hold the inquiry. Chester and the Cheshire County Council proposed that they should have representation on the suggested Board of nine out of 19 members, instead of by ratable value, as is usual. The Council regarded the whole proceedings in the matter as an attempt by the county borough of Chester and the Cheshire County Council to force upon the authorities of the upper reaches of the Dee the cost of the purifi- cation of the river water for the benefit of private interests, namely, those of the Chester Water Company, in order to escape the alternative of having to provide a fresh source of supply for the city of Chester. Nowhere on the upper reaches of the Dee was the river water used for drinking purposes, and assuming that the pollution from sewage was prevented, at an enormous cost, the rivers would still be polluted by surface water from the lands, roads, &c., owing to the formation of the country, to such an extent as to make the river quite unfit to be a source of supply for drinking purposes. The districts in the watershed of the Dee above Chester having provided other sources of supply than the rivers for domestic use at great expense, it was most unjust that the expense of the administration of the pro- posed board, and also in the abatement of every imaginable pollution, which would be such as would be quite beyond the resources of the dis- tricts, should be thrown upon these counties simply to procure a supply of water for the city of Chester, and so save a private company from the cost of providing a wholesome supply for itself. The Council urged the County Councils of the Welsh counties to use every means in their power to prevent the formation of a com- mittee constituted as proposed; and if a committee was necessary at all, it should be representative of these three counties only- Denbigh, Flint, and Merioneth—which had only public interests to serve, and that Chester and the Chester county should be excluded, as having only private interests at heart.

HARVEST FESTIVALS. ———*———

CHESHIRE ~RIFLE ASSOCIATION.

ATTACK ON THE OLD CASTLE AT…

[No title]

SHOCKING REVELATIONS AT AN…

Advertising