WATER SUPPLY POLLUTION

Taranaki Daily News, 22 December 1932, Page 11

WATER SUPPLY POLLUTION

RESPONSIBILITIES OF LANDOWNERS COURT OUTLINES POSITION. The responsibilities of persons, whose acts might lead to contamination of the borough water supply were stressed by Mr. R. W. Tate, S.M., at New Plymouth yesterday, when convicting George Benny and Robert Burrows and ordering each of them to pay 12s. costs. The charge against them was that they had thrown foul liquid or matter, or permit ted it to fall into water used to supply the waterworks at New Plymouth.

The proceedings, which were laid under section 253 of the Municipal Corporations Act, related to material from a slaughter works conducted' by Bennie on Burrows’ farm ,at the junction of the Waiwakaiho River and Kaiauai Stream, near Egmont Village, and to a goat shot by Burrows. In the course of a reserved judgment the magistrate pointed out that a Gazette notice issued on February 26, 1931, proclaimed the Waiwakaiho River, the Mangamahoe Stream and all their tributaries (from their junction to their sources and those of their tributaries) to be under the control of the New Plymouth Borough Council for the purpose of preventing . their pollution. Without taking into, account that portion of the forest reserve affected by this proclamation, the land through which the Waiwakaiho River and the Mangamahoe Stream and their tributaries run was an almost triangular area bounded by the Egmont and Kaipi Roads on the east; by the forest reserve on the south, by the Korito and Kent Roads on the west, and by land owned by the borough as its waterworks on the north. This triangular area comprised about 8810 acres, and many farms were situated within it. The land owned by the borough as its water works was about 601 acres in area and lay between the Waiwakaiho River on the east and the Junction Road on the west.

Benny, in the course of slaughtering operations on land near Kent Road, deposited blood in such a situation that it was washed into a creek, a tributary of the Waiwakaiho River. Burrows during farming operations shot some goats, one of which was left in such a situation that liquids issuing from it were washed into the Kaiauai Stream. In such case the liquid was foul and was allowed to flow into the waters of streams used for supplying water to the New Plymouth borough waterworks. For the defence it had been contended that the of the stream was infinitesimal and that it must be proved that the foul matter had reached the intake of the waterworks, which was two miles distant down the Waiwakaiho River.

Mr. Tate said section 253 had a twofold effect: Foul matter or liquid must not be thrown, or poured, or suffered, or allowed to fall or flow into (a) the water used for supplying water to the waterworks, or (b) the watershed, being a part of the water works. No offence was alleged as to the watershed (the land actually the property of the borough), which was two miles from the spots where the acts complained of took place. These offences related to the water used for supplying water to the waterworks. That water did not come merely from the watershed but mainly from, the triangular or cpntrolled area, or the whole area that drained into'the Waiwakaiho River, the Mangamahoe Stream and their tributaries. An offence was committeed if any foul liquid or matter were thrown, or poured, or suffered or allowed to fall or flow into any of these streams.

The borough then was entitled to have water flow to its property pure, and undefiled, and if anyone did anything within the prohibition of the section, to foul the water either on the watershed or in the controlled area, it might proceed against that. person and the court might inflict an appropriate penalty. Under section 253 it was sufficient to prove that foul liquid or matter had been

put into or allowed to flow into any water used for supplying water to the waterworks.' It was' true that iri ; the. present case the degree ■of pollution might have been infinitesimal, but the degree of pollution was not an element of proof. It was not necessary to prove that the foul matter had actually reached the intake, nor that any foul matter or liquid had been put into the water, below the intake. The offence was committed if any foul matter or’liquid fed been put into or allowed to flow into any water used for supply to the waterworks; that was, into the water of any of the streams in the controlled area. . . In this instance "the actual pollution was small, the defendants had ‘ effectively remedied the practices complained of, and justice would be met by convicting them and* ordering them to pay the costs of the proceedings, without penalty;??*? “The occupants of the controlled area,” proceeded the magistrate, “should • appreciate the effect of section 253 and their responsibilities thereunder. While it is necessary that the land within the controlled area should be effectively fanned, it should be so farmed that the section is not infringed. The maximum penalties prescribed are very heavy. An offender may be fined up to £lOO, as well as £lO per day while the offence continues after notice. .No hardship need be differed in complying with the requirements of the section, but such breaches as throwing dead bodies into the Waiwakaiho and the Mangamahoe gtreams, or any of their tributaries, when ordinary cleanliness demands burial or burning would merit heavy penalties.” At the hearing Mr. F. T. Bellringer appeared for the Borough Council and Mr. H. R. Billing for the defendants.