HARBOUR POLLUTION!

Auckland Star, Volume LXXVI, Issue 147, 23 June 1945, Page 7

HARBOUR POLLUTION!

Published By Arrangement

MENACE TO HEALTH! The proposal to discharge the: sewage of Auckland into the harbour, at Brown's Island, may have most serious consequences for the citizens. I—Obvious Objections. The scheme is 15 years old. It should be re-examined by an independent Commission, which would be able to examine and report upon all modern alternatives. The fact that the Drainage Board is opposed to this investigation appears to indicate that members of the Board are not all quite satisfied that it will bear open investigation. After all, if the scheme is as sound as they say it is—if there are absolutely no practicable alternatives—they have less than anybody to fear from further investigation. The sounder their scheme the more likely they are to be vindicated. 2.—The Orakei Tragedy. We are told that the Brown's Island scheme has the approval of the Drainage Board's Engineer. The Orakei scheme had not only the approval of an able engineer, but also the endorsement of Mr. G. Midgley Taylor, M.lnstC.E., F.R.5.1., described by the "Auckland Drainage Commission" of 1937 as "a drainage expert of world reputation." Mr. Taylor said: "If the sewage is discharged about 2i hours before high water and is allowed to continue to discharge until four hours after high water it will be carried entirely away to the open, sea, into the true tide, never to return" ! In his report Mr. Taylor says also: "Okahu Point is as fine a position for emission of crude sewage as I have ever met with in the course of my experience." The terrible mistake that occurred at Orakei might never have occurred if the Auckland Drainage League had been in existence at that time.

It will be remembered that the public, led by a layman, Major C. E. Whitney, opposed the Orakei scheme just as the Brown's Island scheme is opposed by the public to-day. The tests made by Major Whitney at that time were ignored, but to-day we know that it was Major Whitney, the layman, who was right.

The Brown's Island scheme is only an extension of the Orakei scheme and may prove another major disaster. Surely it is for the citizens to decide a question of this kind, and 50,000 citizens have already emphatically stated that they are not prepared to risk further experiments at the city's expense, and that they do not want the sewage of the city to be discharged into any harbour? 3—Alternatives Not Thoroughly

Investigated,

The statement that all alternatives have been thoroughly investigated and reported upon does not appear quite correct. Messrs. Borrie and Hart, who reported on. the scheme in 1935, did examine alternatives, but Not in Detail, for the following reasons: (a) They did not have sufficient time, arriving in New Zealand on November 16th and presenting their report on December 21—which, allowing one week for the preparation of their report, allowed only four (4) weeks for investigation of the Brown's Island and numerous other schemes, constitution of Board, Finance, etc. (b) The data supplied them was insufficient for their pur ; pose, and they recommended that further investigations be made along certain lines, (c) Subject to the results of these further investigations being satisfactory, they gave qualified approval provided certain conditions were carried out. Two of these conditions being: (1) That the effluent be discharged into deep water. (2) That it be discharged on the ebb tide. Neither of these important conditions is being adhered to, because the water all round the Island is very shallow and it is intended to discharge continuously All Day, that is, irrespective of whether the tide is running in or out, with the consequence that there will be no time for the water to purify itself before further pollution is poured in.

This failure to adhere to the above two conditions forfeits the Engineer's right to claim that his scheme has the unqualified approval of Messrs. Borrie and Hart, and justifies the public's fears that the waters around the Island may be polluted. Driven On To Beaches. With the water all round the Island in a constant state of pollution, it is obvious that strong winds from the N.W., N., N.E. or E. will drive it back on to the beaches on the Auckland side of the harbour right up to the very foot of Queen Street itself.

s—Wind Borne Infection. The proposal to use the Island as a drying-bed for the sludge means that the stench and flies, which are inevitable, will be blown right on to the Eastern suburbs and the city. Dr. Makgill (late public health officer and pathologist for Auckland) says "that Contaminated Sea Spray", would be blown inshore, that "Microbes Are Very Light, and Would Certainly Be Carried In Sea Spray," and that "There Would Be a Real Danger of Air-borne Infection." (Herald, June 20, 1945).

These remarks were applied to the proposal to discharge into the Tasman Sea, but they apply -fyith equal or greater force if sewage is discharged into the land-locked waters of the harbour. 6—Cost of Treatment Prohibitive. The Engineer says that the cost of complete sterilisation would be prohibitive, therefore only partial treatment is proposed for dry weather flow, but read what he says on Page 11 of his 1937 report to the Board:—

" —making a total maximum daily flow of 90 million gallons. It is intended, however, that all daily volumes in excess of 30 million gallons flowing from the sewer system of the Auckland and Suburban Drainage District shall be considered as stormwater, and discharged without treatment, other than screening and detention for short periods in specially designed tanks." Surely no citizen who has the welfare of his or her family and our beautiful harbour would take the risk without further full and open investigation? 7—Offensive Smells.

Here is further evidence, this time from the report of the "Special Investigating Committee set up by the Health Department" in 1932, Page 3: " Treatment works at Orakei would give rise to odours which, owing to the location, would create a nuisance in the vicinity, and also the necessary periodical removal of sludge from the tank would create a nuisance if disposed of in the harbour or if dealt with on shore by any method. " We cannot recommend that sewage from even the existing Drainale Board's area be drained to and treated by septic tank or other method at Orakei."

Surely if the stench and objectionable features of sewage treatment works makes them impossible at Orakei, the same argument holds good at Brown's Island, which is only 1J miles off shore and three miles from the site of the new Tamaki City, where the Government is building 8000 new houses to accommodate 32,000 people. The smell and flies from Brown's Island will be a nice welcome to these people when they move into their new homes. Nearly 50,000 people have already signed the petition asking for further investigation. New Zealand is a Democratic country in which, theoretically at least, the will of the people is supreme. Yet Parliament, at the request of the Drainage Board, has robbed us of our Democratic right to a poll on the question. We demand that the voice of the people be heard. We demand a stay of action of the Brown's Island scheme. We demand that an independent Commission be set up to study and report on all possible alternatives. We demand a clean harbour, pure water, pure air. We demand fullest investigation of the possibility of utilisation. —Inserted on behalf of the Citizens of Auckland by "Auckland and Suburban Drainage League," Rews Chambers, 15, Queen St~, C.l.