THE HEATHCOTE.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVI, Issue 16807, 17 March 1915, Page 4

THE HEATHCOTE.

POLLUTION OF THE RIVER. REPORTS BEFORE DRAINAGE BOARD. At a meeting of the Christchurch Drainage Board last night a. letter was recoived from Dr H. ChessonDistrict Health Officer, regarding the alleged pollution of the Heathcote River by trade waste.

“In October.” the writer said, “the question was raised by tho Woo!ston Borough Council with regard* to the desirability of making by-laws for tlio discharge of trade effluents in the River Heathcote. At that time there was some doubt as to the authority controlling tho river, but since then an amendment has been made to the statutes giving your board the entire control of the river. From my personal observations and the reports of others it is obvious that there is a considerable amount of pollution of the riper through the discharge of wastes from the various trade premises on its banks and this results in the deposit of mud and slime on the banks of the river ana the creation of some nuisance. In fact the river seems to be becoming a mere settling tank. The black offensive matter flows up and' down with the tide, and tho river never gets a chance to clear itself. I can see nothing in your existing by-laws dealing with this mate ter and it would seem desirable that your board should make a by-law laying down a standard for trade effluents discharging into this river; such by-law to be made applicable to all works at present in existence as well as those which may be subsequently erected.”

The board's inspector reported that- be had visited most of the tanneries and wool-scouring works at. Woolston. Hie largo works had a system of catch pits for arresting silt and fat. T. 11. Baker and Company, and Walter Hill and Company had ample space and a good system of settling races and pits. The Bowron Trading Company’s premises were -cramped and catch pits were more limited for the volume of effluents limning through them and the velocity of the flow vm too great. The other works, with a smaller output, did not treat their effluents. No doubt solids got into the river, yet there was no appreciable silting up owing to the channel being confined and of uniform width. ' The falling tide carried everything away to the estuary. The river looked worse than it really was. The black deposit along the -sides was caused by grease, soap ondtan and other chemicals and was the accumulation of years. From a health point of view the discharge from the pits in which hides and skins were soaked was the worst, as it contained a. quantity of blood and other animal matter. At low- tide the river-bed was offensive to the eye and in hot weather it might smell, but he had never hoard that tho health of tlioso living along the banks had been in any way impaired. It was unreasonable to expect this class of works to produce an odourless and colourless effluent but considerable improvement could bo made by the companies at little cost. The Department had already taken steps in the matter and it should see it through. Mr H. Otley said' that the Health Officer’s letter and the inspector’s report varied considerably. He had never heard that the effluent was injurious to health. Mr J. Richardson said that there should be more strict supervision of the river. The menace to public health might not be great but the river was rendered very unsightly indeed. Tho residents felt that the board should'be a little more active in the matter. Tho action of the Woolston Borough Council showed that the residents were taking action. He would press for action to make the. firms effect improvement. Mr F. Burgoyne said that, the place presented an objectionable sight and the firms should be compelled to treat the effluent before turning it into the rirer.

It was finally decided that the board should? visit the river at low tide and. inspect it.