View report page

20
precipitation works at Crossness as well as at Barking have been completed
and in operation for a sufficient length of time to enable their effect upon the
condition of the river to be ascertained beyond dispute or speculation.
"(7.) Without anticipating what the exact results of that experience may
be, we would point out that the removal of the solid impurities by precipitation
must necessarily do away with many of the evils most seriously
complained of by the Royal Commissioners in 1884, and we have little doubt
that a large volume of the effluent water may continue to be discharged with
impunity at Crossness and Barking. During the past half-century the river
has never been free from sewage pollution, and experience has shown that,
provided such pollution be kept within reasonable limits, no practical inconvenience
results therefrom. We have seen nothing in past experience which
would justify any alarm at the present state of affairs, or necessitate immediate
action without waiting for the results of the completed works at Crossness and
Barking outfalls.
"(8.) We have concluded, however, that the whole of the future sewage
should not be dealt with at those outfalls, but that an outfall must be found
for a portion of it at a lower point in the river, where the effluent may find its
way more directly to the sea.
''(9.) After a most careful consideration of the question we have reluctantly
come to the conclusion that there is no point in the estuary of the Thames, or
on the Essex coast near thereto, where the whole volume of the future sewage
could be discharged in a crude condition without risk of returning up the
Thames and other rivers, and of offensive deposits and consequent evils arising
therefrom.
"(10.) Assuming therefore that the sewage must be treated at the new
outfall, we have found that the latter might be conveniently placed at a point
near Shell Haven in Sea Reach, and there would be no advantage at all
commensurate with the increased cost in taking the effluent farther down the
river.
"(11.) Sufficient land might be reserved at any new outfall to enable the
sludge to be in part dug into the soil if it should be found advantageous to do
this, but it would probably be found better to continue the use of sludge
ships, as at present, that is to say, to deal with the sewage sludge in the
same way as the river and dock sludge is dealt with on the Tyne, the Clyde,
the Forth, and so many other rivers, by taking it well out to sea and discharging
it.
"(12.) Practically therefore the sewage might be said to be taken to the
sea, but instead of being discharged in a crude condition at one point, it
would be dealt with in two portions, the least offensive part, that is the
clarified sewage, being discharged some distance up the estuary, and the most
offensive part, namely, the sludge, being deposited many miles out at sea. Of
course, the latter alternative involves an increase in working expenses and a