----- Cornell University Library TD 741.G7 Final report of the commissioners appoin 3 1924 003 641 929 ROYAL COMMISSION ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL. FINAL REPORT ^ OF THE COMMISSIONERS APPOINTED TO INQUIRE AND REPORT WHAT METHODS OF Treating and Disposing of Sewage r~ — (Including any Liquid fkom any Factory or Manufacturing Process) MAY PROPERLY BE ADOPTED. GENERAL SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. presented to botb "toouses of parliament b£ Command of t)is /IBajestg. LONDON : PUBLISHED BY HIS MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE. To be purchased directly from H.M. STATIONERY OFFICE at the following addresses . Adastral House, Kingsway, London, W.C.a ; uo, George Street, Edinburgh; York Street, Manchester; i, St. Andrew's Crescent, Cardiff; 15, Donegall Square West, Belfast; or through any Bookseller. 1915. (Reprinted 1932) Price Is. Od'. net. Itoi Cornell University Library The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924003641929 Ill VICTORIA R. IDlCtOtia, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To Our Eight Trusty and Eight Well-beloved Cousin, Walter Stafford, Earl of Iddesleigh, Companion of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath ; Our Trusty and Well-beloved Sir Eichard Thome Thorne, Knight Commander of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, Medical Officer of the Local Government Board ; Our Trusty and Well-beloved Constantine Phipps Carey, Esquire, Lieutenant- Colonel and Honorary Major-General on the Eetired List of Our Army ; Our Trusty and Well-beloved Charles Philip Cotton, Esquire ; Our Trusty and Well-beloved Michael Foster, Esquire, Master of Arts, Professor of Physiology in Our University of Cambridge ; Our Trusty and Well-beloved Thomas Walter Harding, Esquire, Eetired Lieutenant- Colonel of Our Auxiliary Forces, with Honorary Eank of Colonel ; Our Trusty and Well- beloved Thomas William Killick, Esquire ; Our Trusty and Well-beloved William Eamsay, Esquire, Professor of Chemistry, University College, London ; and Our Trusty and Well- beloved James Burn Eussell, Esquire, Doctor of Medicine, Master of Surgery : Greeting ! "QXUbCtCaS We have deemed it expedient that a Commission should forthwith issue to inquire and report : 1. (1) What method or methods of treating and disposing of sewage (including any liquid from any factory, or manufacturing process) may properly be adopted, consistently with due regard for the requirements of the existing law, for the protection of the public health, and for the economical and efficient discharge of the duties of local, authorities ; and (2) If more than one method may be so adopted, by what rules, in relation to the nature or volume of sewage, or the population to be served, or other varying circumstances or requirements, should the particular method of treatment and disposal to be adopted be determined ; and 2. To make any recommendations which may be deemed desirable with reference to the treatment and disposal of sewage ; IrlOW RHOVP \£Ct that We, reposing great trust and confidence in your know- ledge and ability, have authorised and appointed, and do by these Presents authorise and appoint, you, the said Walter Stafford, Earl of Iddesleigh, Sir Eichard Thorne Thorne, Constantine Phipps Carey, Charles Philip Cotton, Michael Foster, Thomas Walter Harding, Thomas William Killick, William Eamsay, and James Burn Eussell to be Our Commis- sioners for the purposes of the said Inquiry. jfclnOt for the better effecting the purposes of this, Our Commission, We do by these Presents give and grant unto you, or any three or more of you, full power to call before you such persons as you shall judge likely to afford you any information upon the subject of this Our Commission ; and also to call for, have access to, and examine all such books, documents, registers, and records as may afford you the fullest information on the subject, and to inquire of and concerning the premises by all other lawful ways and means what- soever. .clnO We do by these Presents authorise and empower you, or any three or more of you, to visit and personally inspect such places as you may deem it expedient so to inspect for the more effectual carrying out of the purposes aforesaid. IV Httb We do further by these Presents will and ordain that this Our Commission shall continue in full force and virtue, and that you, Our said Commissioners, or any three or more of you, may from time to time proceed in the execution thereof, and of every matter and thing therein contained, although the same be not continued from time to time by adjournment. Hllb We do further ordain that you, or any three or more of you, have liberty to report your proceedings under this Our Commission from time to time, if you shall judge it expedient so to do. Hnb Our further Will and Pleasure ia that you do, with as little delay as possible, report to Us, under your hands and seals, or under the hands and seals of any three or more of you, your opinion upon the matters herein submitted for your consideration. ZatlO for the purpose of aiding you in such matters, We hereby appoint Our Trusty and Well-beloved Frederick James Willis, Esquire, to be Secretary to this Our Commission. Given at our Court at St. James's, the Seventh day of May, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, in the Sixty-first Year of Our Reign. By Her Majesty's Command, (Signed) M. W. Ridley. William Henry Power, Esq., f.r.s., To be a Member of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. VICTORIA R. iDtCtOtm, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Queen, Defender of the Faith : To Our Right Trusty and Well-beloved William Henry Power, Esquire, Fellow of the Royal Society, Medical Officer of the Local Government Board : Greeting ! VlXUbCtCaS We did, by Warrant under Our Royal Sign Manual, bearing date the Seventh day of May, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, appoint Onr Right Trusty and Right Well-beloved cousin Walter Stafford, Earl of Iddesleigh, Companion of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, together with the several Gentlemen therein mentioned, or any three or more of them, to inquire into the treatment and disposal of sewage. Hllb WDCCC&8 One of the Commissioners so appointed, namely, Sir Richard Thorne Thorne, has since deceased. IROW knOW \?C t tnat We > reposing great confidence in you, do, by these Presents, appoint you, the said William Henry Power, to be one of Our Commissioners for the purpose aforesaid, in the room of the said Sir Richard Thorne Thorne, deceased in addition to, and together with, the other Commissioners whom we have already appointed. Given at our Court at Saint James's, the Seventh day of February, One thousand nine hundred, in the Sixty-third Year of Our Reign. By Her Majesty's Command, (Signed) M. W. Ridley. Whitehall, March 18th, 1901. The King has been pleased to issue a Commission, under His Majesty's Eoyal Sign Manual, to the following effect : — EDWARD R. iSbVPatb tbC SCVCUtb, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland King, Defender of the Faith, to all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting ! HXUbeteaS it pleased Her late Majesty from time to time to issue Royal Com- missions of Inquiry for various purposes therein specified : Hnb WbeteaS, in the case of certain of these Commissions, namely, those known as — The Historical Manuscripts Commission ; The Horse Breeding Commission ; The Local Taxation Commission ; The Port of London Commission ; The Salmon Fisheries Commission ; and The Sewage Disposal Commission ; the Commissioners appointed by Her late Majesty, or such of them as were then acting as Commissioners, were, at the late demise of the Crown, still engaged upon the business entrusted to them : ■ClUD WDCtC^St We deem it expedient that the said Commissioners should continue their labours in connection with the said enquiries notwithstanding the late demise of the Crown : IrlOW RttOW ^Ct that We, reposing great trust and confidence in the zeal, discretion, and ability of the present members of each of the said Commissions, do by these Presents authorise them to continue their labours, and do hereby in every essential particular ratify and confirm the terms of the said several Commissions. I*inO We do further ordain that the said Commissions do report to Us under their hands and seals, or under the hands and seals of such of their number as may be speci- fied in the said Commissions respectively, their opinion upon the matters presented for their consideration ; and that any proceedings which they or any of them may have taken under and in pursuance of the said Commissions since the late demise of the Crown, and before the issue of these Presents shall be deemed and adjudged to have been taken under and in virtue of this Our Commission. Given at Our Court at Saint James's, the fourth day of March, One thousand nine hundred and one, in the First Year of Our Reign. By His Majesty's Command, (Signed) Chas. T. Ritchie. VI Thomas Joseph Stafford, f.r.c.s.i. To be a Member of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. EDWARD R. )£bWatb tbC SCVCtltb, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith. To Our Trusty and Well-beloved Thomas Joseph Stafford, Esquire, Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, Medical Commissioner of the Local Government Board for Ireland : Greeting ! XKUbCtC98 Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual bearing date the Seventh Day of May One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, appoint Our Right Trusty and Right Well-beloved Cousin, Walter Stafford, Earl of Iddesleigh, Companion of Our Most Honourable Order of the Bath, together with the several Gentlemen therein mentioned, to be Commissioners to inquire into the treatment and disposal of Sewage. £\HO Wi)CCe£l8» one of the Commissioners so appointed, namely, Our Trusty and Well-beloved Charles Philip Cotton, Esquire, hath humbly tendered unto Us his resignation of his appointment as one of the said Commissioners : VlOW RtlOW QCt that We, reposing great confidence in you, do by these Presents appoint you, the said Thomas Joseph Stafford, to be one of Our Commissioners for the purpose aforesaid, in the room of the said Charles Philip Cotton, resigned, in addition to and together with the present Members of the Commission. Given at Our Court at Saint James's, the Seventh • day of May, One thousand nine hundred and two, in the Second Year of Our Reign. By His Majesty's Command, (Signed) Chas. T. Ritchie. Reginald Arthur Tatton, Esquire, To be a Member of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. EDWARD R. & I. lEbWatb tbe SeVentb, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas Kinc, Defender of the Faith, To Our Trusty and Well-beloved Reginald Arthur Tatton, Esquire, Greeting ! UXUbeteaS Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual bearing date the Seventh Day of May, One thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, appoint Commissioners to inquire into the treatment and disposal of Sewage. H\l\b VPbetea$, a vacancy has been caused in the body of the Commissioners appointed as aforesaid by the death of Major-General Constantine Phipps Carey, C.B. IROW RnOW \>e» that We, reposing great confidence in you, do by these Presents appoint you, the said Reginald Arthur Tatton, to be one of Our Commissioners for the purpose aforesaid, in the room of the said Constantine Phipps Carev, deceased, in addition to and together with the present Members of the Commission. Given at Our Court at Saint James's, the Seventh day of January, One thousand nine hundred and seven, in the Sixth Year of Our Reign. By His Majesty's Command, (Signed) H. J. Gladstone. Vll Whitehall, May 30th, 1910. The King has been pleased to issue a Warrant under His Majesty's Eoyal Sign Manual to the following effect : — GEORGE E. & I. (BeOtge the ^flftb, by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith, to all to whom these Presents shall come. Greeting ! XlXHb CCC88 it pleased His late Majesty from time to time to issue Royal Com- missions of Inquiry for various purposes therein specified : -CvllO WbCtC&8, in the case of certain of these Commissions, namely, those known as — The Historical Manuscripts Commission ; The Horse Breeding Commission ; The Sewage Disposal Commission ; The Poor Laws Commission ; The Tuberculosis Commission ; The Canal Communication Commission ; The Mines Commission ; The Welsh Church Commission ; The Coast Erosion and Afforestation Commission ; The Vivisection Commission ; The Land Transfer Acts Commission ; The Ancient Monuments (Wales and Monmouthshire) Commission ; The Ancient Monuments (England) Commission ; The Trade Relations between Canada and the West Indies Commission ; The Selection of Justices of the Peace Commission ; The Divorce and Matrimonial Causes Commission ; The University Education in London Commission ; and The Brussels, Rome and Turin Exhibitions Commission ; the Commissioners appointed by His late Majesty, or such of them as were then acting as Commissioners, were at the late demise of the Crown, still engaged upon the business entrusted to them : 1*110 WbC£C£l8, We deem it expedient that the said Commissioners should continue their labours in connection with the said enquiries notwithstanding the late demise of the Crown : IriOW fttlOW \£C t that We, reposing great trust and confidence in the zeal, dis- cretion, and ability, of the present members of each of the said Commissions, do by these Presents authorise them to continue their labours, and do hereby in every essential particular ratify and confirm the terms of the said several Commissions. £ttlO We do further ordain that the said Commissioners do report to Us under their hands and seals, or under the hands and seals of such of their number as may be specified in the said Commissions respectively, their opinion upon the matters presented for their consideration ; and that any proceedings which they or any of them may have taken under and in pursuance of the said Commissions since the late demise of the Crown, and before the issue of these Presents, shall be deemed and adjudged to have been taken under and in virtue of this Our Commission. Given at Our Court at Saint James's, the twenty-sixth day of May, One thousand nine hundred and ten, in the First Year of Our Reign. By His Majesty's Command, (Signed) R. B. Haldane. Vlll Frederick James Willis, Esq., To be a Member of the Royal Commission on Sewage Disposal. GEORGE R. & I. (5C0VQC thC fifth* by the Grace of God, of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and of the British Dominions beyond the Seas King, Defender of the Faith : To Our Trusty and Well-beloved Frederick James Willis, Esquire, Barrister-at-law, one of the Assistant Secretaries to the Local Government Board : Greeting ! lW-luCtC98 Her late Majesty Queen Victoria did by Warrant under the Royal Sign Manual bearing date the Seventh day of May, One thousand eight hundred and ninety eight, appoint Commissioners to inquire into the treatment and disposal of Sewage : TlOW RMOW Qd that We, reposing great confidence in you do by these Presents appoint you the said Frederick James Willis, sometime Secretary to the said Royal Com- mission, to be an additional Commissioner for the purposes aforesaid. Given at Our Court at Saint James's the Twentieth day of July, One thousand nine hundred and ten, in the First Year of Our Reign. By His Majesty's Command, (Signed) W. S. Churchill. ROYAL COMMISSION ON SEWAGE DISPOSAL. FINAL REPORT. To The King's Most Excellent Majesty: May it Please Your Majesty : We, your Commissioners, appointed to inquire into the methods of disposing of sewage and trade effluents, humbly submit, as our Final Report, a general summary of the con- clusions and recommendations contained in the nine Reports already submitted. In this our Final Report we recapitulate briefly the main conclusions at which we have arrived as the result of an inquiry which has extended over a period of sixteen years. Of the nine Reports which we have issued, four deal mainly with the purification of domestic sewage discharging into streams (Interim, Second, Fifth and Eighth Reports) ; two with the discharge of sewage into tidal waters (Fourth and Seventh Reports) ; and three with the discharge of manufacturing effluents (Third, Sixth and Ninth Reports). Our Fourth, Sixth and Seventh Reports relate to investigations of a somewhat special nature, which we were requested to undertake with a view to suggesting solutions of par- ticular problems which had arisen. We considered that the questions were of sufficient general importance as to warrant us in dealing with them as part of our inquiry. The subject matter of our Fourth Report — the discharge of sewage into tidal waters — was brought specially to our notice by the Local Government Board, who had been moved to take action in consequence of a number of serious outbreaks of enteric fever, ascribed to the eating of shell-fish obtained from sewage-polluted water. Following on our recommendations the shell fish owners agreed to close sewage- polluted layings, and oysters are in consequence far safer articles of diet than they were before the time of our inquiry. But our general recommendations for securing permanent and effective supervision and control, both of sewage outfalls and shell fish beds, have not yet been adopted. Our Sixth Report was a special Report on the purification of distillery waste. The investigation of this question was pressed upon us by representatives of the Scottish malt distillery industry, who found themselves unable to comply with the demands made by riparian owners for the protection of the salmon fishery. As the result of our experimental work, a plant was erected for the purification of distillery waste, which, during the past few years, has been proved capable of producing at reasonable cost an effluent which is not injurious to fish, and other similar plants are in process of erection. The work in connection with our Seventh Report was undertaken at the request of the Local Government Board for Ireland. A very serious nuisance, due to the decay of seaweed, had arisen in Belfast Lough, into which the sewage of Belfast was discharged. As it appeared that the growth of the weed was encouraged by sewage pollution, a costly scheme for the complete purification of Belfast sewage was submitted by the Corporation to the Local Government Board. Doubts having been expressed as to whether by these means the evil would be remedied and its* occurrence prevented, the Local Government Board, knowing that we had had some evidence on the subject in connection with our inquiry into the pollution of tidal waters, desired to know whether we proposed to investigate further the best and least expensive means of treating sewage so as to avoid similar nuisances. We considered the matter was one of sufficient general importance to justify us in making inquiry in regard to it. We have recalled the particular circumstances in which these three Reports were written because they embodied the results of special investigations which, in the absence of a permanent authority for dealing with such questions, we felt bound to undertake. They form, however, an integral part of our general inquiry. We append a summary of all our Reports in chronological sequence. 6225 \ Interim Report. Cd. 685 [1901]. Our First Report was of an interim character, and contained the following conclusions : (1) No land is entirely useless for purification of sewage, " but in the ease of stiff clay and peat lands " the power to purify sewage seems to depend on the depth of the top soil." " There are, of course, numerous gradations in the depths of the top soil which are met with in nature, " and it is not easy to draw the line between lands which contain a sufficient depth to justify their use, and " lands which do not." " We are, however, forced to conclude that peat and stiff clay lands are generally unsuitable for the " purification of sewage, that their use for this purpose is always attended with difficulty, and that where " the depth of top soil is very small, say 6 inches or less, the area of such lands which would, be required for " efficient purification would in certain cases be so great as to render land treatment impracticable." (2) "... we are satisfied that it is practicable to produce by artificial processes alone either from " sewage, or from certain mixtures of sewage and trade refuse, such, for example, as are met with at Leeds " and Manchester, effluents which will not putrefy, which would be classed as good according to ordinary " chemical standards, and which might be discharged into a stream without fear of creating a nuisance." " We think, therefore, that there are cases in which the Local Government Board would be justified " in modifying, under proper safeguards, the present rule as regards the application of sewage to land." (3) "... as a result of a large number of examinations of effluents from sewage farms and from arti- " ficial processes we find that while in the case of effluents from land of a kind suitable for the purification " of sewage there are fewer micro-organisms than in the effluents from most artificial processes, yet both " classes of effluents usually contain large numbers of organisms, many of which appear to be of intestinal " derivation, and some of which are of a kind liable, under certain circumstances at least, to give rise to " disease." " We are of opinion, therefore, that such effluents must be regarded as potentially dangerous, and we " are considering whether means are available and practicable for eliminating or destroying such organisms, " or, at least, those giving rise to infectious diseases." (4) " It is of the utmost importance that the simplest possible means should be provided for adequately " protecting all our rivers," . . . and " it will be desirable, probably for some time to come, that scientific ■" experiments should be carried on in order to ascertain all the real dangers of pollution, against which they " should be protected." " In the present state of knowledge, and especially of bacteriology, it is difficult to estimate these dangers " with any accuracy, and it seems quite possible that they should be either exaggerated or under-valued " according to the pre-disposition of those who have to deal with them. An authority, guided by medical " considerations, might not unnaturally be inclined to insist on a degree of purity which may ultimately " prove in certain cases to be uncalled for, while another authority, with its mind fixed upon economy, might " shrink from taking essential precautions." ..." the general protection of our rivers is a matter of such grave concern as to demand the creation " of a separate Commission, or a new department of the Local Government Board, which shall be a Supreme " Rivers Authority, dealing with matters relating to rivers and their purification, and which, when appeal ■" is made to them, shall have power to take action in cases where the local authorities have failed to do so." Second Report. Cd. 1178 [1902]. Our Second Report was a formal document covering certain scientific papers which were presented as an appendix to that Report. Third Report. Cd. 1486 [1903]. In our Third Report we dealt with the relations between local authorities and manu- facturers in regard to the disposal of manufacturing effluents. We found that the present state of the law was most unsatisfactory, that the attitude of local authorities towards manufacturers had differed widely, and that many manufacturers were seriously handi- capped. Our investigations showed that purification of trade effluents by the local authority is in the great majority of cases practicable ; purification by the manufacturer is in some cases difficult, if not impracticable ; while purification by the manufacturer would generally be more costly than purification by the local authority. It also appeared that the local authorities, as well as the manufacturers, were of opinion that there should be laid on the local authority a distinct obligation to receive trade effluents. Our recommendations on this point were as follows : " We are, therefore, of opinion that the law should be altered so as to make it the duty of the local " authority to provide such sewers as are necessary to carry trade effluents as well as domestic sewage, and " that the manufacturer should be given the right, subject to the observance of certain safeguards, to dis- " charge trade effluents into the sewers of the local authority if he wishes to do so." " We do not think it possible to provide, by direct enactment, what these safeguards should be. In " each district it would probably be desirable that the local authority should frame regulations which should "be subject to confirmation by a Central Authority. In most cases, however, these regulations could 41 Drovide definite standards for the different manufacturers as regards preliminary treatment, and it appears " from the evidence that manufacturers would much prefer to have standards to work to." " Power to vary the standards or to dispense with them altogether in special cases would be ■" necessary." " Although the duty of receiving trade effluents should, we think, be imposed on the local authority,. " cases may arise in which they should be wholly or partially relieved of it." " For example, we find that in some instances the effluent discharge from the manufactory is of a com- " posite character, the greater part of which might with advantage be easily dealt with by the manufacturer " if it were kept separate. In such cases we think the manufacturer would generally be willing to adopt " this course, but provision is necessary for those cases in which the local authority and manufacturer could " not agree." " Further, although we have received no conclusive evidence to show that there are trade effluents which " could not be purified by the local authority, we do not deny the possibility of such cases arising." " And it is possible that in some cases, as, for example, of a large manufactory being newly established " in a small district, it might be necessary to relieve the authority of the obligation to treat the trade effluent " or to enable them to exact some special contribution from the manufacturer, not only for the cost of treat- " ment, but also towards capital expenditure." " It is obvious, therefore, that some tribunal will be required for settling differences between the local " authority and the manufacturer, and for relieving the local authority in exceptional cases, either wholly " or partially, of their obligation to provide sewers and disposal works of sufficient capacity for trade effluents " as well as ordinary sewage." " We are of opinion that generally no special charge should he made on the manufacturer in those cases " in which the regulations as to preliminary treatment are complied with."* " As we have already stated, it is desirable that, wherever practicable, some preliminary treatment " should be carried out by the manufacturer." " But where the manufacturer is unable to comply with these regulations we consider that the locaL " authority should be empowered to make a special charge." " Power should also be granted to make a special charge, even when preliminary treatment is adopted, " where there are exceptional circumstances as regards volume, quality or otherwise." Settlement of Differences between Local Authorities and Manufacturers. The chief questions upon which we considered that differences might arise, were : (1) The refusal of a local authority to allow a particular trade effluent to enter their sewers. (2) The refusal of a local authority to construct or enlarge sewers for the purpose of a par- ticular manufactory. (3) The question of varying general regulations as to preliminary treatment by the manufacturer, (4) The amount of the special charge to be imposed on the manufacturer. (5) The removal of sludge. The balance of opinion we found to be strongly in favour of the view that for the settlement of these questions it is necessary to constitute a Central Board possessing adequate technical knowledge, such as the Supreme Rivers Authority which we recom- mended in our Interim Report. As regards this matter we reported as follows : " We have been struck by the large sums which have been expended in appeals to Courts, but apart- " from the question of expense we are strongly of opinion that the ordinary Courts are not suitable for the " determination of these questions, and we venture to think that the judgment of the Master of the Rolls " in the case of Attorney-General v. Whitmore, to which we have already referred, clearly supports this view. " His comment that ' the evidence was very complicated, the expert witnesses who were called not only giving " evidence quite inconsistent with one another, but some of them giving evidence in cross-examination which " was quite inconsistent with what they said in examination in chief,' might apply to many similar cases." " The scientific questions to be solved would in most instances be capable of actual determination by " a pToperly-equipped Central Authority, and there can be little doubt that such direct proof would be far " less costly than the process of endeavouring to arrive at the truth through the evidence of expert witnesses " in a Court of Law." " Moreover, the matters to be determined include, not only scientific questions on which witnesses may " be expected to differ, but also considerations of an administrative character which should more properly " be dealt with by a Government Department." " Further, we find that a Central Authority possessing adequate technical knowledge, would command " the confidence of local authorities and manufacturers." " In our opinion a properly equipped central authority is essential, and we unhesitatingly recommend " the creation of such an authority." " In the interests of river purification as well as of the trade of the country we consider it is of the " highest importance that the changes in the law which we have recommended should be made. But these " changes would not in our opinion be of much use apart from the creation of a Central Authority for the " determination of differences between the local authority and the manufacturer." " If the settlement of these differences be left to the ordinary Courts, differential treatment of manu- " facturers, with all the objections to it, will be certain to continue. We also recommended that, for the due protection of rivers, Rivers Boards should be formed for other parts of the country, similar to the three which already exist in Lancashire and Yorkshire, and that these boards should be empowered to determine, subject to appeal to the Central Authority, certain of the differences between local authorities and manufacturers. * See, however, paragraph 10 of the Ninth Report in which we stated : " Our own additional experience and the further evidence which has been laid before us indicate that it may be desirable that local authorities should have a general power to make a charge, provided that the charges were lower in the case of effluents which had been subjected to preliminary treatment in accordance with the regulations." 6225. a 2 We further advised that it should be the duty of Rivers Boards to inspect public water supplies, and to report to the Central Authority any cases of dangerous pollution of such supplies which they may detect; and that the Central Authority should be empowered, after due inquiry, to order the purveyors of the water to adopt such means as, in the opinion of the Central Authority, were reasonable and necessary for removing or diminishing the danger. We also recommended that the Central Authority might, with the aid of the Rivers Boards, very properly collect such information as is available throughout the country in regard to waste of water by pumping from mines, and in regard to the abstraction of water from one district for the supply of another district, to the detriment of the water supply of the district from which the water was taken. We considered that the collection of such information should precede the consideration of the question whether legislative interference in regard to these matters is desirable. We may now add (1914) that it appears to us desirable that a Rivers Board should have a locus standi to appear before Parliamentary Committees in regard to any schemes affecting waters in their district. Fourth Report. Cd. 1883 [1904]. In our Fourth Report, we dealt with the pollution of tidal waters, with special reference to the contamination of shell-fish. We stated that : " After carefully considering the whole of the evidence on this point, we are satisfied that a considerable *' number of cases of enteric fever and other illnesses are caused by the consumption of shell-fish which have " been exposed to sewage contamination ; but in the present state of knowledge, we do not think it possible " to make an accurate numerical statement, at any rate as regards the whole country." " There can, however, be no doubt that the evil is sufficiently grave to demand a remedy." Our main recommendation for dealing with the evil was stated in the following terms : " After carefully considering the whole of the evidence, together with the results of our own investiga- " tions and local inquiries, we are strongly of opinion that the only way in which this evil can be effectively " dealt with is by placing tidal waters under the jurisdiction of a competent authority, and conferring on " that authority power to prevent the taking of shell-fish for human consumption from any position in which " they are liable to risk of dangerous contamination, and to enforce restrictions as regards pollution, and " as regards waters, foreshores, pits, ponds, beds and layings in which shell-fish are fattened or stored, as " and when required." " For this purpose the powers of the authority must be elastic. The case of each river and estuary is " a problem by itself, and it would not be practicable to fix by enactment any standard or standards which " would be generally suitable to the widely different conditions of different cases. Moreover, as the con- " ditions are shifting in character, it is necessary to provide some permanent machinery by which restrictions " can be varied." After considering various alternative suggestions as to the Controlling Authority, we stated that : " We entirely agree with the view which has been pressed upon us by a large number of witnesses that "' Rivers Boards would be the most suitable bodies in whom to vest the local control which we are now " discussing. Their control over inland waters is of a similar character to the control which is required '"' over tidal waters (estuarial and other), and it is desirable and fitting that their jurisdiction should be " extended to tidal waters for public health purposes. There are indeed no other local bodies possessing " the necessary qualifications, and the only practicable alternative to giving them jurisdiction would seem " to be to place the whole control in the hands of a Central Department." We recommended therefore : " That the necessary power of control over the pollution of tidal waters, and over waters, foreshores, " pits, ponds, beds, and layings where shell-fish are grown, fattened or stored, should be vested in the Rivers " Boards, subject to appeal to a central authority." In the Report we set forth, in detail, the procedure which the Rivers Boards and Central Authority should follow. We also dealt with the question of the means which should be adopted for avoiding danger from the consumption of foreign shell-fish. As regards other evils, besides the contamination of shell-fish, which had to be guarded against in the case of discharge of sewage into tidal waters, we made recommendations dealing with these matters. Fifth Report. Cd. 4278 [1908]. Our Fifth Report dealt chiefly with the relative merits of the various methods avail- able for the purification of sewage of towns. General Conclusion. Our conclusions are summarised as follows : " It is practicable to purify the sewage of towns to any degree required, either by land treatment or " by artificial filters, and there is no essential difference between the two processes." " The main questions, therefore, to be considered in the case of a town proposing to adopt a system of " sewage purification are, first, what degree of purification is required in the circumstances of that town, and " of the river or stream into which its liquid refuse is to be discharged ; and, secondly, how the degree of ■" purification required can, in the particular case, be most economically obtained." Removal of Suspended Matters. " We find that it is generally desirable to remove from the sewage, by a preliminary process, a considerable " proportion of the grit and suspended matters, before attempting to purify the sewage on land or filter*." Sedimentation Tanks. " Quiescent Sedimentation. — Two to three hours quiescence is usually sufficient to produce a tank liquor " fairly free from suspended solids, but owing to the fact that some sewages contain a larger proportion than " others of solids that settle very slowly, no general rule can be laid down as to the necessary period of quies- " cence. With this form of treatment the deposit in the tanks should be frequently removed." " Continuous Flow Sedimentation. — The amount of settlement effected does not depend alone upon the " period of flow, but upon a number of other factors. If the tank liquor is to be treated upon filters of fine " material, the period of flow should generally be from 10 to 15 hours. The tanks should be cleaned out at " least once a week." Septic Tanks. " All the organic solids present in sewage are not digested by septic tanks, the actual amount of digestion " varying with the character of the sewage, the size of the tanks relative to the volume treated, and the " frequency of cleansing. With a domestic sewage, and tanks worked at a 24-hours rate, the digestion is " about 25 per cent. " The liquor issuing from septic tanks is bacteriologically almost as impure as the sewage entering the " tanks." " Domestic sewage which has been passed through a septic tank is not more easily oxidised in its passage " through filters than domestic sewage which has been subjected to chemical precipitation or simple sedi- '' mentation." " No definite rules can be laid down as to how long a septic tank should be run without cleaning. In " the case of small sewage works (serving populations of say 100 to 10,000 persons), the tanks should generally " be allowed to run, without cleaning, so long as the suspended matter in the tank liquor shows no signs of " affecting the filters injuriously. For larger works it would generally be advisable to run off small quantities " of sludge at short intervals of time." " The rate of flow through a septic tank is a matter in which the needs of each place require special con- " sideration, but at few places should the sewage be allowed to take longer than 24 or less than 12 hours to " flow through the tank. In no case should less than two tanks be provided, and they should be arranged so " that, if necessary, one tank can be used alone." " As regards digestion of sludge and quality of tank liquor, a closed tank possesses no advantages over " an open tank. There is less risk of nuisance if the tank and the feed channels to the filters are covered in." " By passing septic tank liquor through tanks of a size sufficient to hold about one quarter of the day's " flow, with the addition of from 2 to 3 grains of lime per gallon to the liquor, the suspended solids in the " liquor are materially reduced, a considerably larger quantity of the liquor can be treated per cube yard of " filter, and the offensive character of the liquor is largely destroyed." Chemical Precipitation. " In the case of sewages which contain certain trade waste, and strong sewages from water-closet towns " it is generally desirable to subject the sewage to some form of chemical treatment before attempting to " oxidise the or anic matter contained in it. In most cases careful chemical precipitation materially aids the " deposition of the suspended solids, and facilitates subsequent filtration." "No general rule can be stated with regard to the capacity of precipitation tanks. With continuous flow, " an eight-hours rate is usually sufficient to produce a fairly good tank liquor from a domestic sewage of average "strength." " If sewage is allowed to remain quiescent in the tank, two hours settlement would usually suffice." Relative Cost of Different Tank Treatments. " In . tlie aDBence of special circumstances favouring a particular plan, it would appear that there is very " little difference in annual cost between the various methods of tank treatment when taken in conjunction " with the cost of subsequent filtration through percolating filters, assuming that the kind of filter adopted in " each case is that which is best adapted to the particular tank treatment provided." Filters. " Within ordinary limits, the depth of a contact bed makes, practically, no difference to its efficiency per 'cube yard." " We think that it would be generally inadvisable to construct contact beds of a greater depth than 6 feet ' or of a less depth than 2 feet 6 inches." " For practical purposes and assuming good distribution, the same purification will be obtained from a ^ given quantity of coarse material, whether it is arranged in the form of a deep or of a shallow percolating ' filter, if the volume of sewage liquor treated per cube yard be the same in each case." " With regard to percolating filters of fine material, if the liquid to be purified were absolutely free from ^ suspended and colloidal solids, and if thorough aeration could be maintained, the statement just made for ' filters of coarse material might possibly hold good for filters of fine material also. In practice, however, " these conditions can scarcely be maintained with large rates of flow, and we think that the greatest efficiency " can be got out of a given quantity of fine material by arranging it in the form of a shallow filter " rather than of a deep filter. But we are not in a position to make an exact quantitative statement as to " the difference in efficiency of the two forms." " The amount of sewage which can be purified per cube yard of contact bed or of percolating filter varies — " within practical limits — nearly inversely as the strength of the liquor treated. This statement is based on " the assumption that the size of the material of which the filter is composed is, in each case, suitable to the " character of the liquor treated, and that the material is arranged at the proper depth to secure maximum " efficiency." " Taking into account the gradual loss of capacity of contact beds', a cubic yard of material arranged in " the form of a percolating filter will generally treat about twice as much tank liquor as a cubic yard of material " in a contact bed." " In the case of sewage containing substances which have an inhibitory effect upon the activity of micro- " organisms, the working power per cube yard of filter of either type may be more nearly equal. This point, " however, is not clearly established." " Percolating filters are better adapted to variations of flow than contact beds." " Effluents from percolating filters are usually much better aerated than effluents from contact beds, " and, apart from suspended solids, are of a more uniform character. On emptying a contact bed, the first " flush is usually much more impure than the average effluent from the bed." " The risk of nuisance from smell is greater with percolating filters than with contact beds." " With percolating filters there is apt to be a nuisance from flies, especially with filters constructed of " coarse filtering material. In the warmer months of the year, such filters swarm with members of the " Psychodidce, which, though appearing to breed and develop in the niters, may usually be seen in large numbers " on the walls of houses, or buildings close to or on the works." Treatment of Sewage on Land. " There is no essential distinction between effluents from land and effluents from artificially constructed " filters." " Effluents from those soils which are particularly well adapted for the purification of sewage contain " only a very small quantity of unoxidised organic matter, and are usually of a higher class than effluents " from artificial filters as at present constructed and used." " Effluents from soils which are not well adapted for the purification of sewage may often be very impure," Sludging of Mill Dams. " In any case in which the Rivers Board should be of opinion that the sludging of a mill dam by turning " the accumulated sludge into the stream would give rise to a nuisance and that it would be financially practic- " able for the mill owner to adopt some other method of cleansing the dam, the Rivers Board should be em- " powered, by notice, to direct the mill owner not to turn the sludge into the stream." " It should be provided that any mill owner deeming himself aggrieved by such a direction, might, .within " some fixed period, appeal to the Central Authority. The decision of the Central Authority should be final." " Should any cases arise, in which it is important that the sludge should not be turned into the stream, " but in which the Rivers Board are of opinion that the cost of adopting any other method of cleansing the " dam would be prohibitive to the mill owner, we recommend that the Rivers Board should be empowered " to represent the case to the Central Authority, and that the Central Authority should be empowered, after " due inquiry, to direct that the sludge shall not be turned into the stream. If the Central Authority should " be satisfied that the cost of adopting some other method of cleansing the dam would be greater than the " mill owner could be reasonably called upon to bear, they should be empowered to direct that a portion of " the cost should be borne by the local authorities whose districts would be benefited." Effect of Trade Effluents on Sewage Purification. " All the trade effluents of which we have had experience interfere with or retard processes of purification " to some extent, but we are not aware of any case where the admixture of trade refuse makes it impracticable " to purify the sewage upon land or by means of artificial processes, although in certain extreme cases special " processes of preliminary treatment may be necessary." Nuisance from Smell. " All sewage works are liable, at times, to give off unpleasant smells ; they should, therefore, be situated " away from dwelling-houses, wherever this is practicable." " The nuisance is apt to be considerably greater where the sewage contains brewery refuse in any quantity ; " but, on the other hand, the presence of some trade effluents such, e.g., as iron salts or tarry matters, tends " to render the process of purification less offensive." " The extent of the risk of nuisance depends, however, not only on the character of the sewage, but also- " on the method of treatment adopted." General Observations bearing on Choice of a Method of Sewage Treatment. " The selection of a method of sewage disposal should depend primarily on local conditions." " If a sufficient quantity of good land, to which the sewage can gravitate, can be purchased for about " £100 an acre, land treatment would usually be the cheapest method to adopt." " In cases where only clay land is available, it would generally be cheaper and more satisfactory to provide " artificial filters." " Given conditions favourable to each process, there is little difference as regards cost between any of " the different forms of tank treatment when these are considered along with the cost of subsequent filtration." " Single contact will, generally, only yield a good effluent where the sewage to be treated is weak, and " then only after good preliminary treatment. For the purification of partially settled weak sewage, and ■" for well, as also for partially, settled sewage of average strength, if the case is one in which a good effluent " is required, double contact is necessary, while if a strong sewage has to be treated, triple contact is necessary, " unless the preliminary treatment is exceptionally good." " In nearly every case a greater rate of filtration per cube yard can be adopted if the material is arranged " in the form of a percolating filter, than if it is used in contact beds. In many cases the rate of filtration " through percolating filters may be double or nearly double what it could be with contact beds." " Where the liquor to be treated contains much suspended matter, it is usually advisable to construct " filters, whether contact or percolating, with coarse filtering material. Where the preliminary treatment " has effectively removed the greater part of the suspended matter, it is best to use fine material in the filters." Storm Overflows on Branch Sewers. " Storm overflows on branch sewers should be used sparingly, and should usually be set so as not to " come into operation until the flow in the branch sewer is several times the maximum normal dry weather " flow in the sewer. No general rule can be laid down as to the increase in flow which should occur in the " branch sewers before sewage is allowed to pass away by the overflow untreated. The Rivers Board, or in " districts where there is no Rivers Board, the County Council, should have power to require the local authority " to alter any storm overflows which, in their opinion, permit of an excessive amount of unpurified sewage " to flow over them. The local authority should have the right to appeal to the Central Authority in any " case in which they consider that the requirement of the Rivers Board is unreasonable or impracticable of " fulfilment." " The general principle should be to prevent such an amount of unpurified sewage from passing over " the overflow as would cause nuisance." Treatment of Storm Water Sewage at the Works. " As a general rule, special stand-by tanks (two or more) should be provided at the works, and kept " empty for the purpose of receiving the excess of storm water which cannot be properly passed through " the ordinary tanks. As regards the amount which may be properly passed through the ordinary tanks, " our experience shows that in storm times the rate of flow through these tanks may usually be increased " to about three times the normal dry weather rate without serious disadvantage." " The overflow at the works should be made from these special tanks, and should be arranged so that " it will not come into operation until the tanks are full." " Special filters which are only used in times of storm are not usually efficient, and should not be provided." " Any extra quantity of sewage arriving at the works in storms, which has to be filtered, should be treated " on the ordinary filters, which should be made sufficiently large for the purpose". "As regards the size of the stand-by tanks, the amount of storm water sewage to be filtered, and the arrange- " ments generally for dealing with the storm sewage at the outfall works, the Rivers Board or the County " Council in areas in which no Rivers Boards have been established should have similar power to that which " we have proposed in regard to overflows on branch sewers, and the local authority should have a similar " right of appeal to the Central Authority." " In most cases it will probably suffice to provide stand-by tanks capable of holding one quarter of the " daily dry weather flow, and it will not be necessary to provide for filtering more than three times the normal " dry weather flow." " Under the arrangements which we recommend no storm sewage arriving at the outfall works would " be discharged without some settlement." Separate Systems of Sewers. " In any case in which a local authority wishes to adopt the separate system of drainage for the whole -" or any part of their district, they should apply to the Central Authority, and that Authority should be " empowered to confer on the local authority, by order, such powers as are required.'' " As regards the powers that are required, the provisions which are generally contained in local Acts " in respect of this matter seem to be defective. If separate sewers are provided, the local authority should " have a clear power to enforce the provision of separate drains, but the local Acts to which our attention " has been drawn do not modify the powers of the local authority under the general law in regar"d to bye- " laws as to the drainage of houses. Moreover, the powers of the local authority should not necessarily be " limited to new streets and new houses." " As a general rule, the expense of altering existing drains should fall on the local authority, and there " may be some instances in which it would be equitable that they should bear some portion of the additional " cost even in the case of new roads." " The Central Authority should, therefore, have power to include in their Order such provisions for the " allocation of the cost as they consider equitable, having regard to the local circumstances." Standards for Sewage Effluents. " Our terms of reference require us to have regard to the ' economical and efficient ' discharge of the " duties of local authorities, and in view of the importance of not requiring a local authority to incur any " further expenditure on sewage disposal than the circumstances of its area require, we feel strongly that the " law should be altered so as to allow local circumstances to be taken into account." " We recommend that the Central Authority should determine the nature of the tests which are to be " applied for the purpose of standards, and that it should be made the duty of the Rivers Board, or of the " County Council in areas not under the jurisdiction of a Rivers Board, to determine, from time to time, •" subject to appeal to the Central Authority, what standards should be adopted." 8 " In the first instance it would be convenient that the Central Authority should prescribe one standard " for all non-tidal waters, in place of the existing statutory provisions. It would then rest with the Rivers " Board or County Council to fix, subject to appeal to the Central Authority, a higher or lower standard in " any case in which they were of opinion that the circumstances required or justified a different standard." " We farther recommend that no action should be allowed to be brought in respect of damage alleged " to be due to the discharge of an effluent which complies with the standard fixed for the water into which " it is discharged, but that in such cases complaint should be made to the Central Authority, and, if a prima " facie case is made out, that Authority should ascertain whether the complaint is well founded, and should " be empowered to fix a different standard if the circumstances are shown to require it." " In cases where it is alleged that the effluent does not comply with the statutory standard, and that " damage is caused by the discharge of such effluent, action should be brought in the ordinary Courts." " But any questions arising as to whether the effluent complies with the statutory standard, or as to " whether the damage has been caused by the discharge of the effluent in respect of which complaint is made, " should be referred by the Court to the Central Authority for determination. The costs of such determina- " tion should be borne by the parties to the action in such proportions as the Court may determine." " Power should be conferred on the Central Authority to suspend, from time to time, the operation of H any standard, to allow time for the construction of works, or for any other reason which, in their opinion, " justified such suspension." Tests for Sewage Effluents in Relation to Standards.* " According to our present knowledge, an effluent can best be judged by ascertaining, first, the amount " of suspended solids which it contains, and, second, the rate at which the effluent, after the removal of the " suspended solids, takes up oxygen from water." " In applying this test it is important that the suspended solids should be removed, and estimated " separately." " For the guidance of local authorities we may provisionally state that an effluent would generally be " satisfactory if it complied with the following conditions : — (1) That it should not contain more than 3 parts per 100,000 of suspended matter ; and (2) That, after being filtered through filter paper, it should not absorb more than : (a) 0-5 part by weight per 100,000 of dissolved or atmospheric oxygen in 24 hours. (6) 1-0 part by weight per 100,000 of dissolved or atmospheric oxygen in 48 hours; or (c) 1-5 parts by weight per 100,000 of dissolved or atmospheric oxygen in 5 days. The Central Authority. " To secure the economical and efficient discharge of the duties of local authorities, and others, in regard " to pollution, and adequately to protect the public health and the amenities of rivers, the statutory provisions " in regard to these matters must be of an elastic character." " The conditions of different cases vary to such an extent that the necessary control cannot, in our "opinion, be provided by any direct enactment which could be enforced by the ordinary Courts." " Throughout our Reports, this fact has been fully recognised, and we have proposed, in regard to many " matters, that ultimate control should be vested in an adequately equipped Central Administrative Authority, " and that, as far as practicable, the local Rivers Board should, in accordance with regulations framed by the " Central Department, act as a first tribunal." " Among the more important questions which have to be dealt with under the new conditions of ad- " ministration which we are contemplating, are the following : — (i.) Disputes between local authorities and manufacturers as to the terms and conditions on which trade effluents shall be admitted into sewers. (ii.) The control of shell-fish layings so as to prevent the taking of shell-fish for human con- sumption from positions in which they are liable to risk of dangerous contamination, (iii.) The protection of water supplies from pollution, (iv.) The collection of information as to the water supplies available in various parts of the country. (v.) The collection of information as to the need of water in various parts of the country. (vi.) The settlement of standards for different reaches of water. (vii.) Conferring powers on local authorities, in suitable cases, to provide separate systems of sewers for surface water and to enforce the provision of separate drains. (viii.) The settlement of questions as to the extra amount of sewage which a local authority should be required to treat during storms. " There are also numerous questions in regard to the purification of polluting liquids which, in the interests " of the public, have still to be worked out, and it is essential that the Central Authority should be property " equipped for undertaking such special investigations as they may from time to time find necessary, and " for collecting and collating the work done by others." " Since the date of our appointment considerable developments have taken place in regard to the disposal " of sewage, and there is every reason to think that further changes will occur in the future." " Unless the Central Department keep in close touch with all such changes, and from time to time report " on them, it is not possible for local authorities throughout the country fully to utilise the results of valuable " work which is being done at many places, and hence, to perform their duties in the most economical as " well as efficient manner." Our final recommendations on the subject of Standards are contained in our Eighth Report. 9 Sixth Report. Cd. 4511 [1909]. In our Sixth Report we considered the question of the purification of distillery waste. We investigated the methods which were generally in use for purifying the most polluting waste liquor, which is known as " burnt ale " or " pot ale," as well as the other waste liquors. These methods were land treatment — destruction by heat — evaporation, followed by torrefaction — and purification by means of contact beds. We also carried out experiments on a practical scale with percolating filters erected at the Colebum Distillery. The conclusions at which we arrived were stated as follows : "1. It is practicable to treat the waste liquids from distilleries either on land or on filters so as to produce " a satisfactory effluent." " 2. For treatment of these liquids, percolating filters are more efficient than contact beds, and, according " to present knowledge, it appears to be desirable first to dilute the waste liquids and then to treat them " with lime before filtering them." " 3. It is practicable to destroy pot ale by heat. For this purpose the waste heat of the works may be " utilised, but this alone is only sufficient to destroy about one-third of the pot ale produced. " 4. It is practicable to evaporate pot ale and then to incinerate the syrup so as to produce a manure " which at present sells fairly well at about £5 a ton." " The revenue from the sale of such manure falls far short of the expenditure required to produce it." "There is some risk of atmospheric nuisance with these destructor and evaporation processes, as at present " carried on, and the distillate from the evaporation process is a liquid which would be liable to cause a nuisance " if discharged into a small stream." " 5. The cost of the various methods of dealing with the waste liquids from distilleries would depend " largely on local circumstances. Where suitable land was available at an agricultural price, land treatment " would be the most economical process to adopt, but great care would be required to secure that the land is " not overdosed and that the waste liquids are properly distributed over it." " Of the artificial processes, the plan which has been carried out at Coleburn, would, in our opinion, " be considerably cheaper than any of the destructor or evaporation processes, especially in view of the fact " that these processes only deal with pot ale. So that where they are adopted further means must be pro- " vided for purifying the other waste hquids." " In making this statement we are assuming that skilled supervision would be required in all cases, but " especially in the case of the process which has been carried out at Coleburn." " 6. The Central Authority, which we have recommended to be constituted should be the final tribunal '"to determine all questions relating to standards." " 7. In the case of distilleries situated in towns which are sewered, we think, as a general rule, the liquid " refuse should be allowed to enter the sewers. Its admission to the sewers should be subject to regulations " and safeguards, as recommended in our Third Report, dealing with the relations between local authorities " and manufacturers in regard to the disposal of manufacturing effluents." Further, in response to the request of the distillers that we would consider the question of fixing some standard of purity up to which it would be safe for the riparian proprietors to receive effluents from distilleries into the stream, we stated: " As regards the effluent which the riparian proprietors require, any claim that the effluent shall in com- " position be identical with the river water, without reference to the question of damage, is not, in our opinion, " one which should be entertained." " There are undoubtedly a large number of instances in which it would be physically impossible for any " such demand to be satisfied ; and, if it were to be insisted on, it would involve the stoppage of many of " the distilleries of the country." " The extent to which distillery effluents need be purified, in order that no damage should be caused to " the stream into which they are discharged, would vary with the particular circumstances." " In the case of small fishing rivers, such as the Dulian and Fiddich, where a high standard of effluent " is necessary, we consider that an effluent would probably prove satisfactory if it complied with the following " conditions : — (1) That it should not contain more than three parts per 100,000 of suspended matter ; (2) That it should be non-putrescible on incubation ; and (3) That, after being filtered through filter paper, it should not absorb more than 1-5 parts by weight per 100,000 of dissolved or atmospheric oxygen in five days. "This is quite a practicable standard of purification. The effluent from the plant at Coleburn was "generally much better." " In many other cases a lower standard would, in our opinion, suffice." 6223. B 10 Seventh Report. Cd. 5542 [1911]. Our Seventh Report dealt with nuisances due to green sea-weeds in sewage polluted estuaries, with special reference to Belfast Lough. In this investigation we paid particular attention to Belfast Lough, but we also ex- tended our observations to Southampton Water, Poole Harbour, and several other places where green sea-weed (particularly ulva latissima) were found. Our investigations comprised chemical and bacteriological examination of waters and muds from these localities, chemical analyses of the weeds, and a close study of their habits and growth under different conditions, both natural and artificial. Our observations and experiments pointed to the conclusion that while viva can grow freely without any sewage pollution, the addition of nitrogen in a form which may be supplied by sewage is apt to produce rapid increase of the weed. We found that physical conditions other than a particular quality of the water are essential to the growth of the weed in any quantity, the chief of these conditions being sheltered and shallow waters with sluggish currents, and the existence of means of anchorage for the weed. We also expressed our opinion, based on a comparison of the sulphur contents of viva growing in polluted and unpolluted waters, that, " given similar conditions of decay, it would seem so far as the sulphuretted hydrogen is due to the sulphur in the weed, that, bulk for bulk, viva from unpolluted sources may be capable of causing at least as serious nuisance as viva from Belfast Lough." Removal of sewage pollution, therefore, could not be a complete and certain remedy for nuisance caused by decaying masses of the weed. To meet the particular case of Belfast we recommended a variety of special remedial measures. Eighth Report. Cd. 6464 [1912]. Our Eighth Report dealt in greater detail with the question of the standards to be applied to sewage and sewage effluents discharging into streams, and of the tests to be used in determining those standards, on which we had made provisional recommendations in our Fifth Report. Our object was to devise a system whereby a local authority should not be required to incur any further expenditure on sewage disposal than would suffice to prevent the occurrence of actual nuisance. We found, as a result of prolonged observations on a number of streams, that the most reliable chemical index of the nuisance-producing power of a polluted stream is the amount of dissolved oxygen taken up in 5 days, and, further, that if the stream water normally takes up more than 0-4 part per 100,000 dissolved oxygen in 5 days, nuisance is likely to be caused. If, then, at no point of its course the water of a stream took up more than 0-4 part per 100,000 dissolved oxygen in 5 days, no objectionable conditions were likely to be present. Given the volume and quality of the river water and the volume of the effluent, it would be easy to calculate what should be the quality of the effluent (as judged by the dissolved oxygen absorption test) which would ensure that the mixture of effluent and river water should not take up more than 0*4 part dissolved oxygen. But, while such a calculation should be the basis of any system of standards, it would not be practicable to* employ as a working standard a figure which was the resultant of several variable factors ; such a procedure would permit the discharge of an effluent varying in quality, not only from place to place, but even from day to day in the same place. For administrative reasons we considered that there should be a fixed general standard applied to the effluent alone, and that this standard should be relaxed or made more stringent as local circumstances permitted or required. In order to arrive at a standard of general application to effluents which should at the same time, be based on the above figure of 04 for river waters, it was necessary to make certain assumptions, and to allow a margin of safety for cases in which the assump- tion was not in fact well founded. In the first place, we considered that variations in the quality of the water into which an effluent was discharged should not be taken into account for the purpose of arriving at a standard. Local authorities are not responsible for the quality of the river water above their outfall works, and they should not be required to purify their effluent to an exceptional degree because the water with which it was to be diluted was exceptionally impure. In such a case the remedy should be applied to pollutions higher up the stream On the other hand, local authorities are, to a greater or less degree, responsible for the quality of the river water below their outfall, and it is undesirable that they should be entitled to impair to the verge of nuisance a stream water of more than average purity by discharging into it an effluent of less than average purity. 11 Hence we thought the proper course would be to assume that the river water was neither exceptionally polluted nor exceptionally pure. Analyses of a number of streams, which on the strength of their observed condition were classified as being of average purity, yielded an average figure of 0-2 part per 100,000 dissolved oxygen taken up in 5 days. We considered that for purposes of calculation the quality of diluting water should be assumed to be constant, and represented by the figure 0-2. The governing factor in selecting one of several possible standards should, we con- sidered, be the volume of river water as compared with the effluent. In our Fifth Report we stated provisionally that an effluent would generally be satisfactory if it did not con- tain more than 3 parts per 100,000 of suspended matter, and if, after being filtered through filter paper, it did not absorb more than 1-5 parts per 100,000 dissolved oxygen in 5 days. Further experience showed that filtration through filter paper introduced an element of uncertainty, and that the effluent should preferably be judged with its suspended solids included. In that case we showed that a figure of 2-0 parts dissolved oxygen absorption per 100,000 was comparable with the figure of 1-5 previously suggested, and was also attainable in practice. An effluent taking up 2-0 parts dissolved oxygen per 100,000 would be found by a simple calculation to require dilution with at least 8 volumes of river water taking up 0*2 part if the resulting mixture was not to take up more than 04 part. Our experience indicated that in a large majority of cases the volume of river water would exceed 8 times the volume of effluent, and that the figure of 2-0 parts dissolved oxygen per 100,000, which had been shown to be practicable, would be a safe figure to adopt for the purposes of a general standard, taken in conjunction with the condition that the effluent should not contain more than 3-0 parts per 100,000 of suspended solids. In special cases where the dilution was less than 8 times the volume of effluent pro- vision should be made for prescribing more stringent standards. On the other hand, where the dilution was very much greater than 8 volumes a less stringent standard than the general standard would suffice to prevent nuisance. In order to comply with the general standard a qpmplete system of purification — including biological treatment in artificial filters or on land — would be required. We gave a series of calculations to show that given a certain degree of dilution biological treat- ment could safely be dispensed with, and chemical precipitation would suffice ; given greater dilution simple settlement would be enough, and with still greater dilution even this mode of treatment might be omitted. We summed up our conclusions as follows : " (a) The law should be altered so that a person discharging sewage matter into a stream shall not be " deemed to have committed an offence under the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, if the sewage matter " is discharged in a form which satisfies the requirements of the prescribed standard." " (6) The standard should be either the general standard or a special standard which will be higher or " lower than the general standard as local circumstances require or permit." " (c) An effluent in order to comply with the general standard must not contain as discharged more than " 3 parts per 100,000 of suspended matter, and with its suspended matters included must not take up at " 65° F. (18-3° C.) more than 2-0 parts per 100,000 of dissolved oxygen in 5 days. This general standard " should be prescribed either by Statute or by order of the Central Authority, and should be subject to modifi- " cations by that Authority after an interval of not less than ten years." " (d) In fixing any special standard the dilution afforded by the stream is the chief factor to be con- " sidered. If the dilution is very low it may be necessary for the Central Authority, either on their own " initiative or on application by the Rivers Board, to prescribe a specially stringent standard, which should " also remain in force for a period of not less than ten years." " (e) If the dilution is very great the standard may, with the approval of the Central Authority, be relaxed •" or suspended altogether. Our experience leads us to think that as a general rule, if the dilution, while not -" falling below 150 volumes, does not exceed 300, the dissolved oxygen absorption test may be omitted, and " the standard for suspended solids fixed at 6 parts per 100,000. To comply with this test no treatment "beyond chemical precipitation would ordinarily be needed. If the dilution while not falling below 300 " volumes does not exceed 500 the standard for suspended solids may be further relaxed to 15 parts per 100,000. ■" For this purpose tank treatment without chemicals would generally suffice if the tanks were properly worked " and regularly cleansed. These relaxed standards should be subject to revision at periods to be fixed by " the Central Authority, and the periods should be shorter than those prescribed for the general or for the " more stringent standards." " (/) With a dilution of over 500 volumes all tests might be dispensed with, and crude sewage discharged " subject to such conditions as to the provision of screens or detritus tanks as might appear necessary to the " Central Authority." 12 We also made recommendations on the following points : — Regulations of the Central Authority. " The working of the machinery which we have suggested will be greatly simplified if the Central Authority " draw up a code of instructions or regulations for the guidance of Rivers Boards and local authorities. This " code should indicate the circumstances in which special standards would be permitted and should define, " as far as practicable, the nature of those standards." ' The Taking and Analysis of Samples. '" We think it is desirable that local authorities discharging liquid refuse into streams should take periodical " samples representative of the character of their effluent or sewage liquor, and should submit these samples " to the tests required by the standard and to any other tests which may be prescribed by regulations of the " Central Authority ; and that they should keep systematic records of the analytical results." " Facilities should also be provided for the inspection of these records by the Rivers Boards or Central " Authority, and for the taking and testing of samples by those authorities. Sampling chambers should be " provided in every case as near the outfall as questions of fall and other local conditions permit. These " matters would be proper subjects for regulations by the Central Authority, which should also make pro- " vision in regard to the enforcement of standards, if necessary, by legal proceedings. We do not anticipate " that a Rivers Board would ordinarily take proceedings on the strength of a single sample which failed to " satisfy the standard ; but we think it essential that they should be empowered to do so, in order to prevent " occasional but wilful discharge of highly polluting matter by the improper use of bye-pass valves or over- " flows or by other surreptitious means." Gauging. " The volume of sewage liquor or effluent discharging into a stream is, as we have explained, a factor of " the greatest importance in fixing the appropriate standard, and the regulations should provide for the tanks " or other works being so constructed as to facilitate accurate gauging and drawing of average samples. Power of Entry. " We think that the officers of the Central Authority and of the Rivers Boards should have statutory " authority to enter upon lands at any time without notice for the purpose of inspecting works and rivers " and taking samples of the liquor or effluent and river water wherever they can be obtained. The Rivers " Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, contains no provision on this subject, but reference may be made to sections " 16 and 17 of the Alkali Works Regulation Act, 1881, section 98 of the Thames Conservancy Act, 1899, and " section 7 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1906. In the Mersey and Irwell Joint Committee Act, " 1892 (section 10) and the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Act, 1894, the power to take samples is limited " to the point at which the effluent enters the stream. We think this limitation is undesirable." Storm Water Sewage. " We consider that the standards should not apply to storm water sewage. In regard to this matter we refer " to paragraphs 292 to 295 of our Fifth Report,* and we repeat our recommendations with regard to storm " overflows and the treatment of storm sewage, the adoption of which would in our opinion prevent the " occurrence of nuisance." Tidal Waters. " In part VII. of our Fifth Report we summarized the position in regard to the pollution of estuaries and " tidal waters (which we dealt with at length in our Fourth Report) and stated that we did not think it practica- " ble to lay down fixed rules as regards a standard of effluent for tidal waters." " We do not now suggest that the general standard should apply automatically to tidal waters as in the " case of non-tidal waters, but we think that the principle which we have recommended in regard to special " standards for streams might usefully be applied to tidal waters where a standard is considered necessary." Ninth Eeport. (Cd. 7819.) Our Ninth Report dealt (i.) with the discharge of manufacturing wastes which for any reason could not be taken into sewers, and (ii.) with the disposal of domestic refuse in rural areas. In the first part we gave a detailed account of most of the chief trade processes by which waste liquids were produced, of the character of those liquids, and of the means which had been or could be adopted for purifying them. This account embodied the results of our own observations at a number of works which were selected on the advice of Rivers and County Authorities as being fairly representative of the various trade processes and as including the best examples of purification plant ; it also contained the results of experiments which we had instituted in regard to certain trade liquids, the purification of which was especially difficult. We also utilised information placed at our disposal both by manufacturers and by officials of the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Board and the Mersey and Irwell, and Ribble Joint Committees. These paragraphs are summarised on page 7 above. la all these cases adequate reduction of solids in suspension may be regarded as efficient purification. 13 We found that efficient means of purification were available in the case of some, but not all trade liquids. Many wastes, the impurities of which were mainly in solution, could be considerably improved by clarification, but could not, in the present state of knowledge, be thoroughly purified. Hence the requirement of the existing law that trade wastes should (subject to certain exceptions) be rendered " harmless " was in many cases impracticable, and the authorities charged with the duty of administering the law had to exercise their own discretion in regard to the degree of purification to be demanded of manufacturers. We considered therefore that, as in the case of sewage effluents, there should be prescribed for trade effluents a standard of purity which should at once be a guide to the administrative authorities and a security to the manufacturers in regard to the extent of their obligations. We found, further, that owing to the wide differences in the character of the various trade wastes, both as regards their effect upon steam and as regards the difficulty and expense of treating them, it would be necessary to consider each kind of trade waste separately with a view to suggesting an appropriate standard. We gave reasons for think- ing that it was not desirable or necessary to prescribe a graduated system of standards (as we proposed in the case of sewage effluents), but that a single standard for each trade would suffice, provision being made for raising or lowering the standard where shown to be necessary in exceptional cases. For the purpose of suggesting standards for the different trade wastes, we found it convenient to classify the wastes as follows : — " (A) Those for which efficient purification is practicable ; " (B) Those for which efficient purification is not in the present state of knowledge practicable." " In Class A, we include waste liquors resulting from : ( i.) Coal washing. Tin mining. Lead and zinc mining. China clay works. Stone quarrying. Stone polishing. Wood pulp paper works. (ii.) Brewing. Malting. Distilling. Tin plating. Galvanizing. Wire Drawing. Shale oil distillation. Woolscouring. Tanning. Leather dressing. Fellmongering. Dairying. " In Class B, we include waste liquors resulting from : (i.) Bleaching. Waste bleaching. Paper works (except where paper is made from wood pulp only). Cotton dyeing. Cotton printing. Woollen dyeing. Woollen piece and yarn scouring with dye liquor. (ii.) Sulphite cellulose manufacture. Gas and coke production. "Although no practicable means are known for rendering completely harmless the liquids included in " this class, nearly all of them can be and are considerably improved by clarification. "We have placed sulphite cellulose liquor and gas liquor in a separate sub-division because we are " not aware of any method of so treating them that the effluents could properly be discharged direct into " streams." As regards the standards to be prescribed, we stated as follows : — " We think it impossible to lay down, as regards each trade, such a standard as would ensure the com- " plete purification of rivers, since, in the present state of knowledge, the attainment of such a standard would " in many cases be financially impracticable and therefore useless. We have thought it useful, however, " to suggest limits of impurity which we believe to be now practicable, and which are based upon careful " consideration of the data given in the detailed sections." In these cases dissolved impurities should also be removed. 14 " These figures will afford guidance to the Central Authority when established, and, although provisional and based upon the present condition of knowledge, they should, in our opinion, if prescribed, remain in " force for a definite period. At the end of this period they would be subject to revision, since admittedly they are inadequate to prevent pollution of streams, and improved methods of treatment may mean- " while have been discovered." " In regard to the periods for which standards for sewage effluents should remain in force we made the " following suggestion in our Eighth Report : — ' (52) We think it of importance that a standard once imposed upon a local authority should * not be altered until the expiration of a definite period, in order that they may have some security ' as to the extent of their liability.' ' We suggest that these periods should be prescribed by Order of the Central Authority, and ' should in the case of the general or any specially stringent standard be not less than ten years ' from the date when the standards came into operation. In the case of relaxed standards the periods ' should be shorter. The less elaborate the plant required to meet a standard, the less hardship ' there will be in reducing the period during which the standard should remain in force ; and, on the ' other hand, it is desirable to offer the local authorities some inducement, in the shape of a more ' prolonged immunity from interference, to carry purification beyond the minimum. By the end ' of those periods the Central Authority should have acquired sufficient experience to enable them ' to decide whether the general standard required any modification (which we suggest they should ' be empowered to effect by the issue of an Order), and also to revise, where necessary, the special ' standards in particular cases.' " We think the Central Authority might well consider whether a similar principle might not be applied " to standards for trade effluents, viz., that in the case of those trades where a standard involving expensive " plant is prescribed, the period might be longer than in those where only partials mean of purification are as " yet known. In the latter case the period could of course be extended if in the meantime no improved methods " of treatment had been discovered." Class A. , " (i) In this sub-division, as we have pointed out above, reduction to a low figure of the solids in sus- " pension may be regarded as efficient purification, and this can be effected by adequate settlement." Coal Washing. " We think that the effluent should not contain more than 4 parts of suspended solids per 100,000. In " a number of cases this standard might have to be relaxed ." Tin, Lead and Zinc Mines, China Clay Works, Stone Quarries, and Stone Polishing Works. " Here we suggest provisionally a standard of 6 parts suspended solids per 100,000. So far as our evidence " shows, reduction of suspended solids to this extent should obviate danger to cattle or fish from poisoning " by lead, tin, antimony or arsenic." " There are, however, cases in which no interests other than those of the particular industry are affected " by the discharge of the waste waters. If it can be shown, e.g., in the case of small streams near to the sea, " which are not used for fishing, for navigation, for watering cattle, or for manufacturing purposes, that no " damage is caused by the discharge of waste waters without treatment, we think that the standard might " be relaxed or wholly dispensed with. Paper Mills where wood pulp alone is used. " In this case the effluent should not contain more than 4 parts suspended solids per 100,000." Class A (ii). " In this sub-division, reduction of dissolved as well as suspended impurities is necessary." Breweries and Makings. " We suggest that the effluents should contain not more than 4 parts per 100,000 suspended solids and " should take up not more than 4 parts per 100,000 dissolved oxygen in five days." Distilleries. " For the various methods of treating this waste, we refer to our Sixth Report. Since the issue of that " Report we have kept under observation plants which were erected on the fines which we recommended, " and have found them both efficient and economically practicable. We recommend a standard of 3 parts " suspended solids and 2 parts dissolved oxygen absorption in 5 days. (This corresponds with the genera " standard which we have suggested for sewage effluents.)" Tin Plating, Galvanising and Wire Drawing. " These wastes are strongly acid from mineral acid and contain much iron . in solution. The stronger " liquids should not in any circumstances be allowed to discharge into streams. The wash waters should " be neutralized and settled." " We suggest that the standard for these wash waters should be 6 parts per 100,000 suspended solids." " Even after compliance with this standard, a somewhat yellow and colloidal liquid might result. It " might possibly have to be softened before discharge, but we do not think it necessary at present to suggest " any standard of hardness." Shale Oil Distillation. " The standards which we suggest are 4 parts per 100,000 suspended solids and 4 parts per 100,000 dis- " solved oxygen absorption in 5 days (see p. 153)." 15 Woolscouring Liquor. „ . " Tll ough the precipitation liquor, obtained by subjecting wool-scouring liquor to direct precipitation, ^ is practically free from fat, it remains very strongly organic and may be regarded as similar to a highly " concentrated sewage liquor ; and the same may be said of the septic tank liquor from wool suds, which " also contains much sulphuretted hydrogen." " For this reason we consider that the liquor should be looked upon as a sewage and purified biologically. " This treatment has so far only been carried out in the laboratory, but we are of opinion that it is practicable " at a reasonable cost, and, subject to our conclusion being verified by experiments on a large scale, we recom- mend a standard of 4 parts suspended solids and 4 parts dissolved oxygen absorption in 5 days." " Pending such experiments we would suggest, for this type of precipitation liquor, clarification down " to 6 parts of suspended solids per 100,000." Tannery Waste, Leather Dressers' Waste and FeUmongers' Waste. " These wastes are also highly polluting and contain much organic matter of animal origin in solution. " Our observations in regard to the treatment of wool suds are equally applicable to these wastes, and we " make a similar suggestion in regard to a standard, viz., 4 parts suspended solids and 4 parts dissolved oxygen " taken up in 5 days." Dairy Waste. " Here, too, our observations on wool suds are applicable. We suggest as a standard 4 parts suspended " solids and 4 parts dissolved oxygen absorption in 5 days." Class B. " We now come to that class of trade waste in regard to which we are not in a position to say that efficient " means of purification (such as would render them " harmless ") are reasonably practicable and available. " As we have said, however, some of them (Class B (i),) are, according to present knowledge, capable of being " considerably improved, and it will be useful to indicate to what extent improvement has been found to " be practicable." Class B (i). Bleaching. " In this waste the polluting matter is mainly in solution, but some improvement would be effected by reduction of suspended solids. We suggest that it should not show more than 6 parts suspended solids." " Systematic experiments on a large scale would be necessary before suggesting any standard based on " the absorption of oxygen." Waste Bleaching. " The waste liquor from this trade is of the same nature as that from bleaching, but it may contain a " good deal of soap in addition. We suggest a standard of 6 parts suspended solids per 100,000. Systematic " experiments on a large scale are also required here." Paper Works (Esparto and Rag Paper — Esparto and Wood Pulp Paper). " The liquid portion of most of these wastes is, as a rule, considerably weaker than that of bleach wastes, " but we have found one instance where it was equally strong (owing probably to a less abundant water "supply)." " Here, too, systematic experiments on a large scale are necessary. In the meantime we can only suggest " a standard similiar to that proposed for bleach wastes, viz., 6 parts suspended solids." Paper Works (Brown Paper and Wall Paper). " For the waste liquors from these works we think that a standard of 6 parts of suspended matter would " suffice at the present time." Cotton Dyeing and Cotton Printing. " Compared with many other wastes, these are not very polluting, but their volume is large. Although " most of their oxygen absorbing power is due to dissolved impurities, considerable improvement is effected " by clarification." " We suggest as standards, 4 parts suspended solids for cotton dye liquor and 6 parts for the liquor from " print works." Woollen Dyeing, Piece and Yarn Scouring and Blanket Scouring Liquors (occurring either separately or in any combination). " Though these wastes are not usually concentrated, their liquid portion is, as a rule, of an oxygen ab- " sorbing and putrescent nature. Clarification produces considerable improvement. As a standard, we suggest " 4 parts suspended solids per 100,000." Wool Scouring, with Piece and Yarn Scouring and Dye Liquors. " Wool scouring liquor or wool suds when unmixed with other wastes forms the subject of a later para- " graph. It is an exceedingly polluting liquid, and when it is combined with those discussed in the preceding " paragraph it adds considerably to their strength." " If, however, all four liquors, as produced together at the works, are carefully mixed, it is possible to " obtain, with the aid of good precipitation, a non-putrescible effluent which does not take up oxygen at an " excessive rate." " The standard which we suggest is 4 parts suspended solids." 6225 c 2 16 Class B (ii). Manufacture of Sulphite Cellulose. " So far as we are aware, there are only two works in this country from which either the waste liquid " produced by this process or the more dilute washings are discharged into a stream. We are unable to suggest " a standard appropriate to the waste liquid, but we think that neither the liquor itself nor the first washings " should be discharged into a stream." Gas Liquor. " Here, too, we are unable to suggest a limit of purification. In no circumstances should the liquor be " discharged untreated into a stream. In some cases purification by percolation through " bings " may be " sufficient to permit the discharge of an effluent, but we can make no general pronouncement on the point. " Where no bings exist, biological treatment on the lines suggested by Dr. Fowler will lessen very materially " the polluting power of the liquor. Evaporation appears to be the only other practicable alternative at the " present time." " The information which we have set out above is obviously incomplete. It does not extend even to " all existing trade processes whereby polluting liquids are produced, though it includes the most important. " And it is to be anticipated that new processes will continually be coming into operation and creating a " demand for new means of purification — a demand which could not be efficiently forestalled by any system " of standards which we could suggest." " We do not, therefore, recommend that the Central Authority should forthwith proceed to prescribe " a complete set of standards for all known kinds of trade waste, but we think it eminently desirable that " a general standard should be prescribed in all cases where its efficacy and practicability have been in some " measure tested by experience. We are confirmed in our view inasmuch as the West Riding of Yorkshire " Rivers Board, the Mersey and Irwell and the Ribble Joint Committees, and the Thames Conservancy Board " have progressively employed for their own guidance working rules which are in the nature of standards. It " will, however, be necessary to consider the prevention of pollution both by existing and by new processes " for which no standard can as yet be fixed." " In the case of some trade wastes, additional standards may have to be imposed, e.g., standards of hard- " ness and of " caustic " alkalinity or acidity, or a requirement of neutrality, for the effluents from various " branches of the cotton, woollen and paper trades and from metal works ; a standard for arsenic or other " poisonous metal for trades in which those substances are used or mined ; an oil-film standard for the wastes " from oil, gas, grease or soap works, etc. Some further investigation may be required before such standards " — or some of them — can properly be laid down." " These standards should, in our opinion, be looked upon for the most part as special standards, applicable "" only to certain rivers or reaches of rivers where local circumstances call for them. It is important, how- " ever, that the necessity for imposing them in special cases should be borne in mind when the general standard " is being considered, for in some cases the special standard may be required more urgently than the general *' standard. Several manufacturers have, for instance, urged that the " softness " of a river water is of greater " moment to them than its organic purity. It will be necessary, also, to have special regard to the protection " of drinking waters against mineral poisons." In regard to the alterations of the law which would be necessary to give effect to our proposals, we made the following recommendations : — ALTERATION OF EXISTING LAW. " We may now set out in greater detail the proposed amendments of the existing law which have been " foreshadowed in the earlier sections of this Report. We recommend that the law should be altered so as " to provide as follows : — " (1) The Central Authority may by Order prescribe a general standard for effluents produced by any " trade process therein defined, the standard to remain in force tor a period to be specified in the Order. The " Order shall be published in the London Gazette, and a copy of it shall be sent to every Rivers Board, County " Council, and Sanitary Authority." * " (2) Where a general standard has been thus prescribed, the authority before taking proceedings shall " serve a notice on the manufacturer specifying the requirements of the general standard and the period " within which the requirements are to be complied with. After the expiration of that period, proceedings " may be taken against him for non-compliance with the notice (but on no other groundf), and the consent " of the Central Authority shall not be required to such proceedings. The proceedings should not be taken " in a County Court for an order, but in a Court of Summary Jurisdiction for a penalty. The Court may " extend the period in which the requirements are to be complied with, and if they consider that it is doubtful li whether the notice can reasonably be complied with they shall remit the question to the Central Authority " who shall confirm or modify or cancel the requirements, and who may fix a period during which the require- " ments as confirmed or modified shall be in force or shall be concelled as the case may be. The Central " Authority may from time to time extend such period, but on the expiration of the period the requirements " of the general standard shall be deemed to be again in force in regard to the works in question. " (3) Where no general standard has been prescribed, the authority, before taking proceedings, shall *' serve a notice on the manufacturer specifying the degree of purification which they propose to require, " certifying that means are available for meeting their requirements, and prescribing the period within which " their requirements are to be met. Within one month of the service of the notice, the manufacturer may " appeal to the Central Authority against tho notice. If he does not appeal, proceedings may be taken against " him after the expiration of the prescribed period as if the requirements of the notice were a general standard " in force in regard to his works." * This expression includes Rivers Boards, County Councils and Joint Committees of County Councils. | i.e., not on the ground that he is discharging a "poisonous, noxious or polluting liquid," but only on the ground that his effluent infringes the particular standard." 17 " If he appeals, the Central Authority shall confirm or modify or cancel the requirements of the Sanitary " Authority. If the Central Authority confirm or modify the requirements, such requirements as confirmed " or modified shall be deemed to be the standard in force in regard to the works of that manufacturer for " such period as the Central Authority shall specify. The Central Authority may also extend the period " within which the requirements must be complied with and on the expiration of such period as prescribed " or extended, proceedings may be taken without the consent of the Central Authority for the recovery of " a penalty for non-compliance with the standard in force. If the Central Authority cancel the requirements " for a period, no proceedings shall be taken within that period." " (4) Where a general standard has been prescribed, but for any reason the authority propose to require " of any manufacturer a higher degree of purification than is required by the standard, the authority shall " also set out in the notice the requirements of the general standard and the reasons for requiring the higher " degree of purification. In all other respects, the procedure shall be as if no general standard were in force." " (5) The authority shall be required to prepare an annual report on the administration of the Rivers " Pollution Prevention Acts within their jurisdiction, including particulars of all requirements made by them " under the Act, whether appealed against or not, and to submit a copy thereof to the Central Authority." " (6) Where a Rivers Board is constituted for any area, the authority for the purpose of enforcing the " Rivers Pollution Prevention Acts in that area shall be the Rivers Board. The order constituting the Rivers " Board shall provide for the adequate representation on the Rivers Board of any fishing interests concerned." " (7) Where no Rivers Board has been constituted, the authority for the purpose of enforcing the Rivers " Pollution Prevention Acts shall be the County Council, who should act through a Rivers Committee, and " the Central Authority may, by Provisional Order, confer or impose upon the Rivers Committee any " powers or duties of a River Board, including the co-optation of representatives of any fishing interests for " the said purposes." NEW SOURCES OF POLLUTION. " Representatives have been made to us that the law should be altered with a view to the prevention " or regulation of the establishment of new sources of pollution. It has been suggested that every person " who proposes to set up works whereby liquid refuse might be discharged into a stream should be required " to give notice of his intention to the Sanitary Authority or Rivers Board, specifying what steps he proposes " to take to prevent such liquid refuse from polluting the stream ; that the Sanitary Authority or Rivers " Board should have power (subject to appeal to the Central Authority) to disapprove the proposals ; and " that any person failing to give notice or commencing to discharge liquid refuse after his proposals have " been disapproved should incur a penalty." " We are fully in sympathy with the object of taking measures in advance for the prevention of pollution, " but we think that the suggested procedure might involve needless interference with manufacturers. We " do not, therefore, recommend that the law should be altered except to this extent — that the manufacturer " proposing to establish new works from which liquid refuse would be discharged into a stream should be " required, under penalty, to give to the Rivers Board as long notice as possible, and at least a month's notice, " before commencing to discharge. The Rivers Board would then indicate to him the degree of purification " which would probably be required of him." " We do not think that a penalty other than for failure to give notice or for actual infringement of a •' standard should be imposed." POWER OF ENTRY. " We repeat the recommendation contained in Paragraph 59 of our Eighth Report, which we think " should extend to entry on the purification works of manufacturers." ' (59) We think that the Officers of the Central Authority and of the Rivers Boards should have ' statutory authority to enter upon lands a't any time without notice for the purpose of inspecting works ' and rivers and taking samples of the liquor or effluent and river water wherever they can be obtained. ' The Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, contains no provision on this subject, but reference may ' be made to Sections 16 and 17 of the Alkali Works Regulation Act, 1881, Section 98 of the Thames ' Conservancy Act, 1899, and Section 7 of the Middlesex County Council Act, 1906. In the Mersey ' and Irwell Joint Committee Act, 1892 (Section 10) and the West Riding of Yorkshire Rivers Act, ' 1894, the power to take samples is limited to the point at which the effluent enters the stream. ' We think this limitation is undesirable.' " We recommend further that manufacturers should be required under penalty to provide facilities for " taking samples of effluent at the point or points where it leaves their premises." MINE WATER. "We have already referred to the exemption which is conferred by the Rivers Pollution Prevention "Act, 1876, in regard to waters proceeding from any mine ' in the same- condition as that in which it has " been drained or raised from such mine.' We are not aware of the circumstances to which this exemption " was due. We have received some evidence of the pollution caused by some mine waters of thus character "which, in many cases, continues after the mine has ceased to be worked But ?" <"^ » ™* "sufficient to enable us to make any general recommendation m regard to preventing this form of pollution. " Serte^yS i which we have suggested, it would be open to a Sanitary Authority ^^LH^Te ;; of such waters subject to appeal to the Central Authority, who would be able to considei each case " on its merits." In the second part we made some observations on the disposal of solid and liquid domestic refuse in rural areas. For towns and densely-popluated areas we advocated a public system of sewerage and sewage disposal. We reviewed various conservancy methods of excrement disposal 18 which must be adopted in sparsely populated districts where, owing to expense, a public water supply and sewerage system is impracticable. We pointed out the risks of nuisance and of infection attendant on these methods, and indicated the means by which in our opinion these risks could be reduced to a minimum, the main requirement being constant supervision to ensure the frequent and cleanly removal of excrement from dwellings. The receptacles should be small and constructed of impervious materials ; preferably they should be movable to facilitate the removal of their contents without spilling. One witness, Dr. Poore, strongly recommended the use of pails and the regular disposal of their contents by shallow trenching in garden ground, liquid refuse being also disposed of on the garden after straining by a simple method. This system, which he had instituted on his own property, he found both hygienic and profitable. We could not, however, follow him in recommending its adoption where sewers were available. We pointed out that there must always be a certain volume of liquid refuse which cannot be dealt with by a dry system ; where this volume is small no difficulty need arise, but where an ample water supply is readily available this volume is largely increased and a water-carriage system becomes inevitable. Cesspools might be utilised, but if they are watertight it would probably be both costly and offensive to empty them ; if not they might endanger water supplies. A system of sewerage and sewage disposal should, in our opinion, be complementary to an abundant water supply. We stated our general conclusion as follows : — " In rural areas the main fact governing the question of the removal of excremental matter and domestic waste " waters is the abundance or the scarcity of the water supply." " (1) With an abundant water supply, piped to the houses, water carriage is, in our opinion, the most " satisfactory system. In most cases abundant water supply will involve a system of sewerage. Where there " are isolated dwellings which it would be very costly to connect with the drainage system of the district, the " cesspool is a possible alternative where there is no danger of polluting water supplies." " Under the Public Health Act, local authorities have a discretion in regard to compelling connection with " their sewers. We think it right that with their local knowledge they should have this discretion. The " storage and disposal of excreta is a matter concerning a man's neighbour as well as himself." " (2) Where a water carriage system is impossible because of the inadequate water supply, we believe " that under proper supervision a system of dry closets may be open to little objection on sanitary grounds, " provided the closet is so constructed that its contents can be conveniently and frequently removed, as by " the use of pails." " In small communities the removal may generally be left to the householder. In larger villages it " may with advantage be undertaken by the local authority." " The domestic waste water is best distributed over the gardens, or it may be conveyed to a cesspool, " as far as possible from the dwelling, if no water supplies are prejudiced by the leakage from them." " In villages where no sewers are available, it is desirable that cottages should be provided with ample " garden space for the disposal of domestic refuse." " The use of dry earth in dry closets is of great importance, and local authorities should be given full power " to secure its use." " Local authorities should also circulate to householders elementary information as to the best. method " of dealing with refuse over their gardens." Sir William Ramsay, who was not in full agreement with the views expressed in this part of our Report, drew up a separate memorandum, of which the following is a summary : My difference with my colleagues consists almost entirely in the views which we take as to the disposal of household refuse where an abundant water supply is available. From data furnished by the late Dr. Poore, and from my own experience, I am convinced that it is not difficult to dispose of the excess water on a moderate-sized garden, on two con- ditions : First, that the soil is not an absolutely impermeable clay ; second, that ordinary commonsense be available. Few, if any, gardens consist of impermeable clay ; and I cherish the hope that the average householder is not incapable of learning to perform the simple operations necessary to enable him to get rid of his bath-water, and water used for domestic purposes. I agree in the main with the conclusions of my colleagues, except as regards their statement that the domestic waste water may, with advantage, be conveyed to a cesspool. 19 The conclusions to which I have been led are as follows : " (1) That legislation be so framed that no obstacle shall be placed in the way of any person or com- ' munity, preventing them from disposing of sewage and slop- water in the soil ; and that where there is a ' mixed community, part of which lives in terraces and streets, and part in isolated houses, rates for a water- ' carriage scheme should be levied only on those houses which are served by it. " (2) That Inspectors be encouraged to gain knowledge as to the elementary principles involved in the ' domestic disposal of sewage, by the issue to them and to the public, of literature dealing with accredited ' means of disposal. (3) That a simple set of regulations should be drawn up for use by the public, the contravention of ' which should be punishable by a small fine ; and " (4) That booklets of instructions should be issued at a cheap rate, so that no householder can remain in ignorance of means which will easily dispose of his refuse, while at the same time his garden will be rendered ' much more productive. " I would urge strongly that steps should be taken without delay to improve the methods of sewage ' disposal among rural populations as suggested in this memorandum, knowing that the social and sanitary ' conditions of so many of the inhabitants of this country will be affected by this action." Sir William Power appended to the Ninth Eeport the following Memorandum, on certain administrative questions : — MEMORANDUM BY SIR WILLIAM POWER, K.C.B., F.R.S. Participation during many years in the work of the Commission, particularly in that of its expert investigatory staff, has greatly impressed me with a sense of the important issues involved in its " findings." So far as the scientific aspects of the problem com- mitted to the Commission are concerned, the marshalling of fact and the statement of inference adopted by my colleagues has my concurrence. Also I am in agreement with them as to directions in which the law governing Rivers-Pollution administration needs to be altered. But I regret that the promise, held out in paragraph 24 of our Ninth Report, of indication by the Commission " in greater detail of what should be the functions of these bodies (Rivers Boards) in relation to the discharge of manufacturing wastes directly into streams " has not been more adequately fulfilled. Hence this separate Memorandum. To me it has appeared of essential importance that Watershed Authorities should definitely be charged with control of Volume as well as of Quality of water in their rivers ; and that the Commission, while summing up the powers, duties and functions proper to be conferred on a Watershed Authority, should utilise fully the experience gained of the problems with which such Authority will in practice be confronted, and go oh to indicate, in due proportion and orderly sequence, the procedures adoptable by the Watershed Authority in exercise of such powers, duties and functions, — and this not least as regards sections of river that are neither drawn on for public water supply nor are tidal. In a series, therefore, of memoranda in which I sought from my colleagues acceptance of pro- positions in this sense, I set out a number of considerations in support of them. These memoranda may prove of service to the Department of Government called upon to deal with questions, legislative and administrative, arising as a result^of the pronouncements of the Commission. The review which seemed to me called for of the theory and practice of administration by the Watershed Authority, was necessarily practicable only on termination of the important concluding sections of the Commission's investigations, those as to trade wastes ; and, unfortunately, the stage at which it became practicable, and at which I had come to regard myself as under obligation to press the considerations referred to on my colleagues, coincided with strong extraneous pressure specially brought to bear on the Commission to bring its long sustained labours to a close. In the circumstances the time remaining at our disposal did not suffice me for gaining adherence of my colleagues to my view. IDDESLEIGH, Chairman. T. WALTER HARDING. WILLIAM RAMSAY.* W. H. POWER.f T. J. STAFFORD. R. A. TATTON. F. J. WILLIS. R. H. H. KEENLYSIDE, Secretary. February 11th, 1915. * Subject to the memorandum on the disposal of domestic refuse in rural areas of which a summary is given on pages 18-19. t Subject to the memorandum on certain administrative questions. 11729) Wt.10898— 1106— PS.19966. 500. 9/32. r. L. H. &■ Co. LTD. C.922.