Welsh Newspapers

Search 15 million Welsh newspaper articles

Hide Articles List

13 articles on this Page

RIVER POLLUTION.

News
Cite
Share

RIVER POLLUTION. It is difficult to say anything that is new on the question of the pollution of our rivers. The question has been so fully discussed of late years, so much has been said, so much more written, and so very little done, that the matter is almost becoming a bye-word. It is true that the Local Government Board occasionally rake up the old inquiries, which usually have the etfect of allowing Corporations to borrow large sums of money to carry out what are called sewage works, which, in plain English, only means collecting all the sewage that used to be discharged at various points into the river, and sending it in at one, thus creating a worse aniaantrf than ever, and often landing the un- fortunate ratepayers into legal proceedings to stop the nuisance they paid so largely to create. If,-however, the Local Government Board adopt the views put forward by the Yorkshire Fishery Board and Lord Wenlock, at an enquiry into the disposal of theYork sewage,held at York week before last, a new departure of very great importance, from a fishery point of view, will have been made. York, it appears, is one of the numerous towns that, in spite of the Rivers' Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, continues to pour its sewage into the river and, so far as that Act was concerned, it might have gone on pouring in sewage until the end of the time bnt in 1884, York went to Parliament to enlarge its boundaries, and Parlia- ment, as a condition of granting the extension, compelled the Corporation, within two years, to submit to the Local Government Board a plan for purifying its sewage. The Corporation seems to have taken a very long two years, but at last they have prepared a scheme, and the Lecal Government Board has sent down an inspector to inquire into its merits. The scheme proposes to intercept all the existing sewage from the river, bring it to a pumping station about a mile below the city, and then pump it to a place about two milea lower down the river, where it will be treated on the continuous system, with lime and alum, and, after passing through tanks, the effluent will be discharged into the river, about a mile above the Nalm Dam, which is situated at the head of the tideway. The result will be that the sewage of York, which is now discharged by various small drains over a space of about ten miles, will be all discharged at one spot, a little way above a weir. The Yorkshire Fishery Board and the fishery owners, such as Lord Wenlock, Mr Palmer, and others, naturally feel disquieted at the proposed state of things, and they appeared at the inquiry by counsel to place their views before the Local Government Board. Of the three modern ways of treating sewage, all or any could be tried at York, and, curiously enough, at about the same cost, except the cost of the land. From the proposed pump- ing station the sewage could be easily pumped, and land very suitable for sewage furnished. The sewage could be treated and the effluent passed through land before it is dis- charged into the river or the sewage could be treated and the effluent discharged direct into the river. The Corporation of York adopted the last course, not because it was the best, for it was admittedly not so, but because it was the cheapest, and, as they contended, all that was required. Having regard to the volume of water passing down the Ouse, and the volume of the sewage, the proportion, they allege, would never be less than fifty to one. The Fishery Board, however, were afraid that, however well this might look on paper, in practice it would not be so satisfactory, as, although the volume might be small, unless the works were properly managed the effluent would become highly poisonous and, looking at the fact that the Ouse at the point where it was proposed to discharge the water was almost stagnant, it was, in effect, discharging the deleterious matter into a pond. Up to this point iha case did not differ from most sewage cases, but the counsel for Lord Wenlock and the Fishery Board, Mr Willis Bund, here took another line. He elicited, in cross-examination, from the engineer, Mr Mansurgh, whose know- ledge of sewage works is most extensive, that he, the engineer, did not know of any sewage works on a salmon river, or what was the effect of sew- age on Salmonidce, especially migrating Salmonidce. Like most engineers, Mr Mansurgh Stated that fish could be seen feeding at the mouths of drains and sewers, and that it was therefore clear that crude sewage did not hurt them; but, in cross-examination, Mr Mansurgh was compelled to admit that the fish usually seen at the mouths of sewage drains are roach and dace—not Salmonidce—and he was unable to say if migrating Salmonidce were ever found at the mouths of drains. Mr Mansurgh also admitted that the effluent from the York sewage at the pro- posed new works could be made much purer if it iWfrhltered through land before it was discharged into the river, that there was no reason it should not be, except the small additional cost it would cause. Professor Denan, who also gave evidence, admitted he did not know of any case of treated sewage on a salmon river, although some of the dye works at Galashields were treated, and also some of the manufacturing refuse at Perth. It was then contended on behalf of the Fishery Board that as it was admitted that the question of purity of the effluent was a mere matter of cost, and as the Local Government Board allowed different degrees of purity for the effluent, according to the places where it was discharged, that on all rivers in which any migrating SdlmonicUe are found a higher standard of purity should be required than elsewhere. At Sheffield, where fish life and all other life has been long extinct, all that is required is that the effluent should be unobjectionable, so far as appearances went, and the same rule was applied to Manchester. At Aylesbury and Hertford a higher standard was insisted upon, and also at Kingston-on-the-Thames. That while it was more than probable the Sheffield effluent would kill all fish, the Kingston did not do 80" as far as roach & dace were concerned, and that now, for the first time, salmon rivers were being dealt with, the Fishery Board were entitled to ask for the purest possible effluent at a reason- able cost. It was also urged by Mr Bund that the question was not whether the effluent in a salmon river was absolutely poisonous to fish life or not that it might well be that fish would live near where the effluent came in the question was whether, having regard to the proposed purity of the effluent, and to the whole of the sewage being concentrated at the one spot, salmon would run past it. Would they not,-when they first felt it, drop back and either hang about the sewage outfall and the weir or return over the weir, spawn in unsuitable places above, and the whole of the spawn be thereby lost ?—a state of things that would in a very few years put an end to the Ouse as a salmon river. What the views of the Inspector on these arguments may be we shall not know until he makes his report, even if we do then but meanwhile we are desirous of bringing the question before the Fishery Boards and the fishing public generally, and ask if they are not prepared to take their stand on some such ground as this-to endeavour to get the Local Government Board to follow out the pre- sent practice, and state that the quality of the emuent shall depend in all cases on the water of the river into which it flows. If no fish live in it, if it is a stream like the Aire, or the Calder, or the Irwell, then let the Sanitary Authority be content with an effluent that is clear and not offensive. If fish life exists, then let the effluent be adapted so that the fish will not be injured. The suggestion is ingenious, that Salmonidce, 09 require a greater degree of purity than any other fish, and migratory SalmonuLe the purest form of all, and we regret that Mr Bund, instead of ap- pearing as counsel and suggesting what we believe is a new departure, was not called as a witness, and the facts elicited 011 cross-examina- tion which he relies to prove it. The facts must be derived from observation, and careful obser- vation, of the habits of fish, and if the Severn Fishery Board, who, we are aware, are engaged in making a variety of observations on the habits j of fish, have any facts to establish the point, we trust they will give them to the public, for it will be a clear gain to the fishing interests if this sliding scale of Mr Bund's can be recognised and established. The argument about; fish being seen at the mouths of rivers has always been a favourite one in the mouths of those who pollute t our streams and it has always seemed to us one that it is difficult to get over. But if the view that the C'yprinida will live where Salmonida; will not, that migrating Salmonida; will not swim by a source of pollution that is strong enough to kill I them, is correct, we are certainly justified in insisting that the test of purity shall be, not what kills fish, but what deters fish not what affects roach and dace, but what causes salmon to turn aside from their upward path. There may obviously be two very different qualities of affluent, andwe think that all fishermen should mind that in salmon rivers the purest possible effluent should be required. At York it is said to be only a question of cost. Probably £ 3,000 or £ 4,000 extra outlay would be all that is required. All our scientists now say that they can purify the sewage effluent to any standard that is required. Parliament should, therefore, insist that the standard should be proportionate to the requirements of the river. If the Local Govern- ment Board instruct their Inspector to insist on this sewage scheme, and if in future extensions ■ 1 a:. „ ot the limits ot towns rarnameni itinkra itilo a condition of the sewage scheme, we believe a great step in advance will have been made. At any rate, all our fishery boards are deeply in- debted to Lord Wenlock and the Yorkshire Fishery Board for raising this important point.— Land and Water.

INTELLECTUAL POSITION OF WOMEN…

[No title]

THE IMAGINATION IN MEDICINE.

Advertising

WRITING TO THE PAPERS.!

INTERESTING DETAILS CONCERNING…

IMITATION OF WOOD CARVINGS.

THE QUEEN'S VISIT TO WALES.

[No title]

CARMARTHEN BOARD OF GUARDIANS.

A CLAIM FROM MR. ELLIS EDWARDS.

[No title]