PURE RIVERS [To the Editor of the SPECTATOR.]
Sin,—Reverting to Mr. Marston's letter on this subject in your issue of November 27th, 1926 : If a conciliatory attitude (towards polluters of English rivers) is ever likely to be successful, why have the Standing Committee now recom- mended the creation of the Central Water Board ? The truth is that the devoted and able efforts of anglers to deal with this subject by conciliation or otherwise have unhappily failed, as they were bound to do ; for great industries are considered more important than sport, and people are apt to forget the great value of our commercial salmon fisheries.
At the 1926 meeting of the Association of Fisheries Board, Mr. Maurice, the Chief Secretary (Fisheries), said that pollution had made progress (is the word " progress " quite nice in this connexion ?) since the Act of 1923 was passed and that new pollutions had come into existence. No definite results were claimed for the Standing Committee. What arc we to do in such circumstances ?
Much good can be done by a Central Water Board, clothed with adequate powers and officered by men versed in the science of dealing with sewage and the general run of pollutions. The Royal Commission reported that most of the industrial pollutions could be dealt with, so there is no need to sit with folded arms and preach further experimental work while our rivers are getting daily worse. In the West Riding of Yorkshire is a Water Board which is doing splendid work, and there are a few others.
If further experimental work is to be carried out, and it certainly should be, the large federations of manufacturers should at least share the expenses with the Government. That the Government should carry out all the experiments at the public expense savours of Socialism. With an export trade alone of about 2600,000,000,- there is plenty of money available for experimental work.
There is, I am told, a danger of the proposed Central Board being given power to legalize polhition in certain cases. That might create a most serious position. Everyone will agree that if the stopping of a 'certain pollution would cripple an industry' of national importance; the Board should Make no ordei. If a certificate to pollute is given; ever• person engaged in the same indUstry would claim one, and the pollution wou.ei probably continue after the means to deal with it had been discovered.• There -would' be great heart-burning between
those manufacturers who were licensed to pollute and those who would be debarred from doing so.
It is important to note that success has been met with in checking pollution by the associations of land owners, fishery tenants, and others interested in the Rivers Test, lichen and Kennet. The method employed has been most conciliatory and no legal proceedings have been taken, but there is a guarantee fund should legal proceedings ever unhappily be necessary.
I understand that in America the most poisonous pollution of all, the " Coke Oven," is not allowed to be put on the banks of a river, and that the rivers generally are far better protected by the Government than is the case here. It is pleasing to hear from Mr. Marston of a Pure River Society having been formed there.
1 know of no period when manufacturers and local authorities suffered from legal action " taken continually year after year " when there was " any hope of getting damages." Mr. Marston is misinformed. The trouble always has been that pollution, as a rule, has been allowed to " progress " unchecked. One might almost say that the alleged new policy of so-called conciliation is dangerously near the old policy of drift, so far as taking active steps to check pollutions is concerned.—I am, Sir, &c.,
C. H. COOK (" John Biekerdyke ").
Hopefield, Cape Province, South Africa.
Previous page
