View report page

44
state they are incapable of sufficiently purifying the sewage,
consequently the effluent from them has to be treated by
surface irrigation over a large area of land, with a view of
further purification, before being discharged into the brook.
It is evident that a policy of inaction in respect to> the
sewage disposal works is impracticable. The main point at
issue is how best to act with a view to the present and future
requirements of the District.
Three courses appear to be open:—
Firstly: To reconstruct the majority of the present filter
beds, provide additional pumping plant, and, in all probability,
further tank accommodation as well.
Secondly: To carry the whole of the sewage by gravitation
to the area lying below the low level sewer outfall, make use
of detritus and septic tanks in place of chemical precipitation
and construct new primary and secondary bacterial beds.
Thirdly: To treat the high level sewage on the present
system, and the low level sewage by a partial septic process
as outlined above.
While the adoption of either the second or third course
would obviate the necessity for pumping and thus effect an
economy, the second has the additional advantages of requiring
a comparatively small area of land for the works, and less outlay
on upkeep.
A scheme based on these lines, i.e., partial septic treatment
of the whole volume of sewage, followed by passage of the
effluent through a double series of bacterial filter beds, has
been prepared by the Council's Surveyor, Mr C. J. Jenkin, and
after careful consideration by the Public Health Committee,
the Council resolved, on November 12th, 1905, to proceed with
the construction of a portion of the works, which will be in
themselves a complete installation sufficient for demonstrating
the applicability of the system of local requirements, and at the
same time form a concrete part of the whole scheme should it
be finally adopted.