Mr Kirk Replies To “The Press”

Press, Volume CIII, Issue 30560, 1 October 1964, Page 16

Mr Kirk Replies To “The Press”

(From Our Own Reporter)

WELLINGTON, September 30

Mr N. E. Kirk, member of Parliament for Lyttelton, maintains in* a reply to today’s leading article in “The Press” that the Drainage Board should have foreseen the pollution problem of the Sumner beaches. The main cause of the situation is the inadequacy of the sewage disposal systems and very little hope of remedy is held out by the Drainage Board, he says.

Mr Kirk says in reply to the leading article: —

Today’s editorial on pollution at Sumner poses the question as to whether the Drainage Board may have reasonably foreseen the present situation. The evidence suggests that it should have. Conditions in the area have been subject to complaints for a long time. And many of these have no relationship to possible changes in ocean currents. “Inadequate System” For instance, the depositing of sullage and, latterly, raw sewage on the beach at the foot of Clifton is due, as are most other sources of pollution, to inadequacies of the sewage disposal systems. That is the main cause. What hope of remedy is held out by the board? Very little. A newspaper statement on September 26 said a report was being prepared on the present troubles but “it could not be said whether in fact anything could be done in the circumstances.” Thus, effective repairs are stated to be doubtful. The next consideration must be the piping of effluent to the treatment plant. In the same report, it was said for the Drainage Board that this would be done “eventually” and that “so far, only quite minor planning had been done towards bringing this about.” Little Advance

“This represents little, if any advance on earlier statements on this project.

On March .21, 1963, a published statement said this scheme might be five years off. By June 20, 1963, it was stated that it was not possible to say “when a starting date could be predicted.” One thing clear from all this is that the board can hardly claim to have shown much enthusiasm to get this vital work under way. I wholeheartedly agree with your editorial statement that work to deal with the pollution "should be put in hand as soon as possible, but not to the detriment of new housing areas.” However, this carries an inference that, because of the

board's loan programme, one sewerage work could only have been started at the expense of the other. I wonder if this is correct? Board’s Loan

During the period that the pollution problem has steadily worsened to the point where it has become a hazard to health, it was possible for the board to undertake a “six figure” building loan programme without affecting its works borrowings: £206,000 was the sum involved. Thus, it does not seem unreasonable to suggest that a greater effort could have been made to deal with the problems of the Mount Pleas-ant-Sumner area without affecting the loan programme for important works in other areas.

Finally, the imminence of elections does not absolve anyone from doing their best to have matters put right. Nor should they be allowed to conceal the fact that when, after a long period, all the board can say is that only “quite minor planning has been done,” there is little promise of a more vigorous approach in the future.

In these circumstances the people can only hope the Board of Health will now require to be done that which the Drainage Board could and should have done Itself.