PURITY OF WATER.

Taranaki Daily News, 13 July 1922, Page 6

PURITY OF WATER.

INGLEWOOD BACON CO. CASE. FINE OF £2O INFLICTED. THE MAGISTRATE’S JUDGMENT. — / / Allegations of allowing drainage and refused to flow into the Waiongona stream so as to pollute the water and render it dangerous to the people of Waitara formed the bafiis of charges laid against the Inglewood Co-operative Bacon Co., Ltd., by the Health Department. and heard at the New Plymouth Magistrates Court recently. The first charge was that the company did pollute, so as to be dangerous to health, the water supply of the borough of Waitara, contrary to the form of the statute. They were also charged under the borough of Waitara by-laws, that they did permit and suffer drainage and refuse from its land and premises to flow into and to be deposited in that portion of the watercourse known as the Waiongona stream, from the source thereof |o a point half a mile below the intake of the water supply of the council of the borough of Waitara. After hearing tfie case the Magistrate (Mr. A. M. Mowlem. S.M.), reserved his decision, and his written judgment was delivered at the Waitara Magistrate’s Court yesterday.

The judgment was as follows: FACTS ADMITTED.

In this matter three separate informations are laid against the defendant company. One of them is under section 61 of the Health Act, 1920, and charges the defendant company with polluting, so as to be dangerous to health, the water supply of the borough of Waitara. The other two informations are laid under the by-laws of the borough of Waitara, such by-laws being made under the provisions of the Public Health Act, 1908. I shall deal with the charge laid under section 61 of the Health Act, .1920. All formal facta and proofs are admitted by counsel for defendant company. The facts are: In the year 1899 the defendant company established its works on the banks of the Waiongona stream, and : have since that year continuously carj ried on its operations as bacon curers , and incidental The whole ; drainage from such works from the time iof their establishment to the present 1 time is emptied into the said stream at • points adjoining such works. In the first • and earlier years of the company’s oper- ■ ations, some 2000 pigs per year were ■ dealt with, but at present and for some years past 6000 and 7000 pigs are dealt with.

In the year 1910 the Waitara Borough Council established its water supply for the purpose of supplying the inhabitants of Waitara with water. Such supply was drawn from the Waiongona stream at a point distant about six miles down stream from the site of the defendant company’s works. From the evidence I think it a fair presumption to draw, and I draw it accordingly, that the Health Department at the time of the establishment of such waterworks were satisfied as to the purity of the water in rhe said stream as a source of supply. I find from the evidence that it is proved that from lime to time in the pan complaints were made that the defendant company were, by their methods, polluting the stream, and it is equally clear that, following upon conferences with local health inspectors, certain traps and filters have been erected by the defendant company to minimise as far as possible the danger to health which it was feared would arise from the discharge of the drainage into the stream and to render sucli drainage as innocuous as possible.

DRAINAGE UNFILTERED. This Court is nor called upon in the case to decide whether. the traps and filter so erected were effective for their purposs or not. because whatever the effectiveness or otherwise of such works, it is plain, and is in fact admitted, that active steps were taken by the manager of the defendant company, or under his authority, to prevent the drainage from flowing into such filter., and thus compelling the discharge direct into the stream in an unfiltered condition. •* What. then, was the position of affairs on April 7 last? On that day Health Inspector Swindells visited the defendant company's works, and has sworn that he found all the drainage and soakage from the works discharging directly into the stream. In the inspection chamber were found portions of entrails and trimmings from the slaughterhouse, which should have been led to the filter, but which were not 4o led. a sack having been put over the mouth of the pipe leading from the inspection chamber to the filter. The whole of the evidence given ly the health inspector as to the condition of affairs proves to my mind, and beyond all question, that pollution dangerous to health was as a fact taking place.

QUESTION OF POLLUTION. On June 20 Dr. Monk, district health officer, visited the defendant company’s works, and the detailed result of his inspection on that day, as given to the Court, again establishes the fact that pollution dangerous-to health was taking or had just taken place. Irrespective of the admissions of pollution made by counsel for the defendant company at the hearing, I have no hesitation in holding, as I do, that pollution dangerous to health took place on April 7 and on June 20 last.

Counsel for defendant company admitted at the hearing that pollution of the stream takes place and, on the dates mentioned, took place at the site where the various drains and overflows enter the stream, but it is urged that there is not on that account any danger to the health of the people of Waitara. It is urged that the stream, in rushing over its rocky bed, and in the course of about six miles from point of pollution to point of intake, effectually cleanses itself by dilution and aeration, and thereby renders innocuous all the polluted matter the defendant company discharges into it. ANALYSIS NOT NECESSARY. It is to be noticed that no analysis, whether chemical or bacteriological or both, was produced to the Court. The defendant company’s counsel drew attention to this phase of the matter, but it does not appear to me that any such analysis in necessary to the establish-

i ment of the informant’s case. In view of the evidence of serious pollution, given by Inspector Swindells and by the district health officer, Dr, Monk, and in view of the admitted fact of pollution by the defendant company at the point where the drains from, the works discharge into the stream, it appears to me that the duty is thrown upon the defendant company to prove that they have not by their act polluted the stream so as to be dangerous to health at the point where the water supply intake connects up the stream. * But Dr. Monk says, and I accept his evidence on the point, that it was not necessary to analyse the water, as pollution was so self-evident. The evidence for the defence consisted of that given by Dr. Farris, of Inglewood, and Dr. Wade, of New Plymouth. Dr. Farris, in his evidence, says: “I consider that what the defendant company has done is not harmful,” but in cross-examination he says he does not excuse the fact that the coke filter ought to have been used. Dr. Wade says: “If the intake is six miles away from the point of pollution the water ought to be clear at the intake,” and in cross-examination he again says that “six miles is sufficient in my opinion to purify.” “I asked what was done with the entrails, and was told they were buried.” The doctor apparently was not made aware of the true position of affairs at the defendant company’s works. He was told that the'entrails were buried. The fact is they were not buried, but were collected in pits, uncovered and exposed to all weather conditions, the drainage from which pits flow into the stream, although the doctor did not say that even under these circumstances he still considered the river would purify it; nor was he informed that portions of entrails and trimmings were found in the inspection chamber, nor can I find any reference in his evidence to his knowledge of the fact that the filter was not being used. These were material facts, and should have been brought to his knowledge.

DEFENDANTS GUILTY. Is Gie defendant company guilty of polluting the stream so as to be danger- j ous to the health of the people of Wai- < tara? In. view of the evidence of Inspector Swindells and of Dr. Monk, and, indeed, in view of Dr. Wade’s evidence where he says “the whole thing is a risk, but I consider it under the circumstances almost negligible; if there is a risk there is danger, small though it be,” 1 have no hesitation in holding the defendant company guilty. In dealing with the question of penalty to be imposed for the breach of section 61 of the Health Act, 1920, attention is drawn to the fact that the penalty mentioned in that section is £lOO. In the present case, if I were satisfied that the company had done all in its power to prevent 'or minimise the danger, a purely nominal penalty would no doubt have bej-n all that is necessary. But there is uncontradicted and admitted evidence of a delibej-ate act on the part of the manager of the defendant company’s works which had the effect of sending crude sewage direct into the stream. The manager’s explanation for this is that it meant a day to clean it out. “It was necessary to clean it out every other day we killed.”

If this evidence be true, as it undoubtedly is, it is plain that the filter, when in use, was of some considerable effect, seeing that it demanded such constant cleansings, and these cleansings indicate the amount of sewage and drainage that should have been put through the filter, but which, as "a fact, were allowed to be discharged direct into the stream. NOMINAL PENALTY INADEQUATE. In these circumstances, therefore, it appears to me that something more than a nominal penalty ought to be inflicted. The defendant company is fined £2O (costs of court 11/-, informant’s solicitor £2 12s 6di witnesses, Mr. Kendrick 18/-, Mr. Fear £5 2s 6d. Defendant's expenses were allowed as follows: —Dr. Farris £1 Ils 6r, Mr. Kendall £3 15s. solicitor £2 2s.