View report page

16
Responsibility for prevention of pollution of rivers
is divided thus
(1) County Councils are responsible for the river itself
under the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act 1951.
(2) Borough Councils are responsible for preventing contamination
of surface water drains which enter thee
river, under the Public Health Act 1936.
As far as the River Brent is concerned the history of
our efforts to reduce the liability to infection from the
river is as follows
Prior to 1952 regular sampling of the river was under
taken as it flowed through the Borough and where pollution
was discovered efforts were made to trace the source and
remedy the defect Although this work did improve the0
situation it became apparent that the river was very
badly polluted on entering the Borough Thus however
great an effort was made the result could only be partially
successful Accordingly in November 1952 at the instigation
of the Ealing Borough Council a joint Conference was
held between the Medical Officers of Health and Borough
Surveyors of Ealing. Brentford & Chiswick Southall,
Hendon and Willesden together with the County Medical
Officer and the County Engineer and Surveyor in order to
analyse the problem and means of remedying it It was
agreed that there were three main causes of pollution of
the River Brent.
(a) Solid or liquid material deposited on the banks which
falls or is washed into the river.
It was decided that although the Borough Councils5
could deal with certain of these cases under their Publicc
Health powers, the County Council had wider powers under
the Rivers (Prevention of Pollution) Act. 1951 and cases
should, in general be referred to them. This problem
should also be borne in mind when considering planning
applications submitted by riparian factory owners.
(b) Polluted surface water sewers and ditches
The Conference agreed that the problem of tracing the
sources of pollution in such cases involved an immense
amount of work and patient observation, especially where
the discharge was intermittent and progress was limited
by the manpower available. The County Council was conducting
a survey in conjunction with other local authorities
concerned, and samples taken each month from suspected