BOROUGH SEWERAGE

Northern Advocate, 23 May 1929, Page 3

BOROUGH SEWERAGE

DISCHARGE INTO HARBOUR

HOARD DO US NOT AGREE

ORJOINAiL CONSENT ADHERED TO

The W'hangarr-i Harbour Board yesterday did not view the Borough Council’s sewerage disposal proposals in their amended form in a very favourable light.

The engineer, Mr W. M. Fraser, reported having, on the 2nd insf., accompanied the District Medical Officer ot Health (Dr Chosscm), the Whangaroi Borough Drainage Engineer (Mr Worley), and the Borough Engineer (Mr Archer), on an inspection of the alternative sites of the proposed septic tank. While not being concerned with the choice of sites for the tank, he urged that if Hoey’s site wore not adopted and the tank were erected on Harbour Board land, the discharge pipe should be carried as far downstream as possible, and with this Dr Chosson had no objection, although ho still favoured Hoey’s site on account of its accessibility and its greater distance from, present and future traffic routes. In speaking on the subject . later with Mr Worley, the engineer uas informed that wherever the tank may bo situated, instead of opening the sludge periodically and removing, by manual labour, the sludge which would then be in a semi-solid form, as was at first intended, the table, while remaining sealed, would be flushed out with water weekly and discharge 1 direct through the outfall pipes into the channel on the outgoing tides. The I board had already given its consent to the original scheme, but if the site is to be removed to the mudflat, the engineer recommended that the dischago pipe should empty at a point as j near as may bo practicable to the confluence of Limeburners ’ Creek with j the main channel. The placing of the j outfall whore recommended would allow of a largo percentage of the j effluent from the septic tank being I carried on the incoming tides up the Limeburners’ Creek, where there was no habitation, and thereby prevent to a large extent the possibility of often- j sivo matter finding its way up to and j past the town basin, whore small boys j caught fish for the breakfast tables, j and large numbers of children ann | adults were to be seen swimming daily j during the summer. j The area of the proposed septic tank j was 120 feet by 06 feet. The top of j the structure would be one foot above ! high water, with the manhole two feet I above this level, while the bottom of j the tank would be seven feet below i high-water level. Mr Worley estimated j that to build on the mud flat would entail an additional constructional cost j of £1,200, due to the necessity of cofferdams, pumping, piling and tidal working conditions, and in reference to the suggestion that, it might facilitate the building of the septic tank if the area lying between Limeburners’ and Hooy’s were reclaimed from the sea, Mr Eraser estimated the cost of a substantial stop-bank enclosing 10 acres at £SOO.

After the plans had bec.K examined Mr J. E. Holmes pointed but that the new suggestion that semi-solid sludge would be flushed out twice weekly on the outgoing tide was quite different from what the board had previously agreed' to. Mr Hoey had Jirst signified his intention of taking part of the discharge for manure, but then had refused to have the septic tank on. his property. The Works Committee of the Borough Council had recommended that the site at Hoey’s be taken under the Public Works Act, but this had been deleted by the council, and a meeting of the full Council in committee would be held immediately after the Harbour Board meeting to consider the Hatter’s decision. Mr L, A. Johnson stated that the board had definitely given its consent in the first place' on the understanding that the water would be cleaned out twice a year, instead of being merely flushed out once a week. The board was dealing with a thing which was not just for a year or two, but for a considerable period, and the interests of the endowments and river lands must bo carefully safeguarded. The hoard had a lot of property iu the vicinity of whore it was now proposed to discharge, and it would be detrimental to have semi-solid matter cast up every week. .

The chairman said he had- visited the place with the Mayor and Mr Worley, hut unfortunately the site was covered bv the tide.

In answer to Mr Johnson, the engineer denied a statement attributed to him by Mr Worley in his report.

Mr Holmes said that Mr Worley had admitted to him that the engineer had not made the statement referred

The correspondence regarding the scheme was read, and it was decided, on the motion of Mr Johnson, that the Borough Council be informed that the board was prepared to adhere to the original scheme and- conditions.