Rivers pollution (Scotland) : report to Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland / by Alfred E. Fletcher ; presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty.

  • Fletcher, Alfred E.
Date:
1888
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Rivers pollution (Scotland) : report to Her Majesty's Secretary for Scotland / by Alfred E. Fletcher ; presented to both Houses of Parliament by command of Her Majesty. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by The Royal College of Surgeons of England. The original may be consulted at The Royal College of Surgeons of England.

    4/30 (page 4)
    Since that dale until September 1887 I have not been called to take further action under this Act. In that month I received instructions from the Secretary for Scotland to examine into and report on the alleged pollution of the waters of Loch Long and Loch Goil. This was done ; specimens of the water from those and the neighbouring lochs were collected; also portions of the muddy deposit found at the bottom of the lochs. In all 69 specimens were collected and submitted to chemical analysis. A detailed report has been presented, and is given here in Appendix No. 4. Sufficient time has now elapsed since tbe passing of the Rivers Pollution Prevention Act, 1876, to make this a fitting occasion for offering some remarks on it in the hope that opportunity may be found for effecting amendment where that may appear to be necessary. Under this Act various operations which might lead to tbe the pollution of streams and watercourses are prohibited, such as placing any solid matter in them or allowing any polluting liquid to enter; none, however, but a sanitary authority can enforce these provisions or take proceedings against an offender. In certain cases the central authority may order such proceedings to be taken (clause 6), but the local authority may then exercise its discretion as to whether it shall obey such order or not. Cases often occur where the local authority or those who have influence with it are themselves the offender. It is evident that in such cases the Act may become inoperative. In the case already referred to, when an inquiry was instituted as to an alleged pollution of the River Ruthven, the local authority exercised the discretion allowed them under clause 6 of this Act and declined to carry out the direction of the Secretary for Scotland in the matter, thus frustrating the object of the inquiry. Objection may also be raised as to the provisions of clause 12 whereby an inspector under the Act is empowered to grant to a manufacturer or other user of water a certificate that he has employed “ the best or only practicable and available means for u rendering harmless the polluting solid or liquid matter falling or “ flowing into any stream.” Such a certificate may remain in force for two years, and is to be held “ in all courts and in all proceed- “ ings under this Act as conclusive evidence of the fact. It should be noticed that although the Inspector has power to grant this certificate, the effect of which may extend over two years, and shelter the holder from further legal action on the ground of having caused the pollution of water, yet he has no power of ascertaining whether those “ best and practicable means ” for which be has certified are continuously practised, or whether on the granting the certificate they are allowed to lapse into disuse. I would submit that clauses 6 and 12 should be removed from the Act and that provision should be given for the appointment of a Chief Inspector and district Inspectors as under the Alkali Act.