The Campaign for Cleaner Beaches
For as long as cities have existed, there has been a problem with sewage disposal. In 1941, for example, the Belmont Urban Area Committee protested about plans to have untreated sewage discharged into the ocean at Nine Mile Beach. There were plans to build a treatment works but, with the war effort at full capacity, funds were not available. The Hunter District Water Board (HDWB) said that the proposed scheme was temporary, however, other people "believe that it will be 'temporary' for a long time." Similar problems existed in the vicinity of Glenrock Lagoon where sewage emptied on the beach and, at times, was driven back into the lagoon.
In 1944, Newcastle Council expressed its concern after the council's Chief Health Inspector reported that: "[U]nless action is taken to control septic tanks from discharging into the harbour, the future health of the community may be seriously affected. The mayor agreed to call a conference of the Health Advisory Committee, local government authorities as well as State and Federal members."
The State Government was criticised for allowing this state of affairs to occur. Effluent from sewage works near Branxton, Morpeth and Maitland areas plus waste water from factories and collieries was being discharged, or was gaining access to the river. Ald McGrath said "[m]ost of the foreshores have been alienated. The Hunter River is being converted into a sewer. If we are going to put up with it, we are failing in our responsibilities."
Tarro Shire Council also expressed concern and decided to seek "all the facts" about the state of the river. Earlier the Minister for Works had said there would be no pollution from the discharge of sewage and effluent, but now "the Health Department said it could not allow swimming baths to be built in the river at Raymond Terrace because of the effluent from various sewage schemes."
During the 1950s and 1960s the Newcastle Herald contained many articles requesting Newcastle Council to upgrade beach facilities such as kiosks and changing sheds, but there is little mention of pollution. During the 1970s there was, however, an occasional article, which gave some indication of just how bad the problem remained. One such article reported " [t]housands of fish are dying in the North Channel of the Hunter River, off Stockton and Fern Bay. Fishermen said the fish were frantically trying to get out of the water… when there is a 'fresh' in the river, industrial waste discharged from industries is not neutralised as it is by salt water. By yesterday the tide had carried most of the dead fish away but small groups were still scattered along the shore. Small children were seen carrying away bags full of them."
One of the earliest mentions of a problem with sewage disposal was in 1973 when the newly elected Federal Member for Shortland, Peter Morris, raised the issue in his maiden speech to Parliament. The speech focused on local environmental concerns and the "delibrate neglect" of the Newcastle Region by the previous Coalition Government. Two major sewage projects needed to be funded, he says. "About $15million was needed to provide a proper disposal system at Burwood Beach and about $12million to improve the Belmont sewer outlet." Unfortunately a lack of political and public support at the time meant that this funding did not become available until well into the next decade. By then the problems had become much worse.
In 1977 Blacksmiths Beach had to be closed to bathers "…because of pollution from Belmont South Sewerage works." This story appeared on the front page of the Newcastle Herald accompanied by a photo of a beach inspector putting up a sign which read "WARNING. SUSPECTED POLLUTION. SWIM AT YOUR OWN RISK."
The story brought a quick response from Peter Morris, the Federal Member for Shortland, who said that the state of some of our beaches "…was a national disgrace."
Most of the pollution of local beaches was the result of inadequate treatment of sewerage, which was discharged into the ocean. In 1983 the editor of the Newcastle Herald noted that; "the disposal system was based on the age old Australian thinking that since sewerage had to go somewhere, the best place for it would be in the sea, where it would be out of sight and out of mind… The thinking was that it was politically more important to spend heavily on improving water supplies than on sewerage disposal."
The other significant source of pollution of Newcastle beaches came from the garbage being dumped overboard by the large number of ships which were anchored at this time off the coast while they waited their turn to enter the harbour. Two Newcastle businessmen wished to run a helicopter service taking supplies to the ships and bringing back garbage on the return trip.
Meanwhile Mr Cowan, the Federal Member for Lynne, told Parliament that the ships' garbage being washed ashore in Stockton Bight was "…not only offensive to local citizens, but it created a danger of spreading disease into Australia. The spread of foot and mouth disease would have grave consequences for our primary industries. Many of the boats sitting off Newcastle come from countries which have this disease, he said." In April 1981, talks about the problem were held between the council and the shipowners. However, these talks didn't resolve the issue.
During December 1981 and January 1982, the Newcastle Herald ran nine articles reporting on the sorry state of our beaches. Beach-goers who left their litter behind when they went home aggravated the situation. Radio station 2NX (NXFM) held a concert at Nobby's Beach and, anticipating the mess that would be left behind, hired nine members of the Lions Club of Charlestown to clean it up. These nine people filled nearly forty garbage bags with rubbish from the night.
A few days later, a quantity of oil flowed in with a king tide onto Burwood, Dudley, Redhead and Blacksmiths Beaches. "Beach Inspectors suspected the oil came from the growing floating city of ships off Newcastle." The next day, oil washed up on all beaches, stretching from Nobby's to Merewether.
The following day, the Herald's Editor wrote that the newspaper had "…throughout the Christmas and New Year period, recorded the ebb and flow of litter on our beaches. There has been plenty of flow but not much ebb. The occasional north-easterly wind has blighted the beaches with rubbish from the 42 ship armada queuing off the port and twice in the past week. An oil slick has given holiday makers depressing confirmation that the shipping line up is imposing an environmental - as well as an economic - cost on the community…these ships have to be made subject to stringent anti-dumping rules."
The Editor acknowledged that beach-goers also contributed to the problem and said "[t]he can throwing, bottle throwing, wrapper throwing society is seen at its worst on the beaches. Appeals not to rubbish Australia can only work on people who have the glimmerings of a social conscience."
Six years later, Newcastle City Council spent $52,000 on a beach sweeper to "…clean up each of the city's beaches at least once a week." Lake Macquarie was already using a similar machine on its beaches.
In April 1983, the problem of sewerage quite literally resurfaced. The Herald reported that it had received many "complaints about sewerage spread along Merewether, Dixon Park and Bar Beaches…Inquiries revealed the problem was caused by unfiltered sewerage being pumped out of the Burwood sewerage treatment works for six hours. A local resident, Mrs June Ebrill, collected samples of litter with the intention of sending them to the President of the HDWB and the Minister for Water Resources to emphasise the need for upgrading the Burwood facility. A spokesperson for the HDWB said that due to heavy rain, so much water was going through the sewerage plant that not all of it could be filtered and some was diverted straight into the ocean."
Mrs Ebrill contacted the HDWB and was told: "[y]ou give us $30 million and we'll fix it, or tell all your friends to stop flushing their toilets." As the Herald editor explained, the problem was that "…the Burwood plant and outfall were built more than 40 years ago when the volume of sewerage was far less than it is now. The Editor, with local politicians in mind, noted that the disposal of sewage is no longer unimportant and the political clamour is growing to rectify the problem. Newcastle, which in 1980 was promised loan approval by the Premier, Mr Wran, to upgrade sewage works is still waiting for the promise to be met."
Residents gather at Merewether to discuss beach
pollution, 1983.
Two weeks later, the Herald reported that local beaches had been recently closed "for the fifth time this year because of faecal coniform readings of up to seven times the safe limit." In response to this situation, Merewether residents organised a public meeting on the local beach. It was attended by over 400 people. The meeting was addressed by local group representatives, academics, and three aldermen. Significantly, there was no one there to represent the HDWB or the council's health department. The secretary of Newcastle's Trades Hall Council, Peter Barrack, was asked to chair the meeting. He said "…the pollution was a civic disgrace and a problem for everyone in Newcastle." Dr Stephen Leeder, Professor of Community Medicine, said people "…should not allow themselves to be fobbed off by the HDWB or the State Pollution Control Commission that were there to serve them."
Speakers at the public meeting, 30/5/83
The meeting resolved to "maintain pressure on the HDWB and the State Government to update sewerage treatment in Newcastle. A petition was circulated, calling for grants to be made available to do this. A committee was formed and given the task of organising and publicising future meetings. The committee adopted the name The Clean Oceans for Newcastle Committee.
The intermittent beach closures continued during June and the Herald continued to publicise them. The Herald then put a series of questions on the issue to the HDWB. In response a spokesperson said the board did not believe that pollution problem was getting worse but it was more apparent because of the recent introduction of daily water sampling.
The board had also become more aware of the problem. It was carrying out a "…wide ranging study which deals with aspects of the treatment process, water temperatures, faecal coniform readings and other factors which contribute to pollution."
The Herald's Editor was not about to let the matter rest. A week later the editorial said "[i]f the past three months are any guide, the coming summer may be tough on regular beach goers, and it will be awful for the tourist industry." This reference is significant because it came at a time of declining employment in manufacturing when Newcastle was looking to expand its service industries, and in particular, tourism. Various people made the obvious point that that beach closures were having a detrimental effect on the tourism industry. Should the media remain silent on the issue? "Never" said the Editor of the Herald, who also went on to say "…the problem will be solved only when a pipeline is built to take the Burwood effluent well out to sea. This project has to begin (and)…unless the pressure is maintained publicly by the media and concerned residents, the chances of swift action must be slight."
The HDWB, in a letter to Newcastle City Council, said that a "…reduction in pollution from the Burwood Beach outfall could only be achieved with a large capital expenditure, and that it was reviewing alternatives to find the most economic and satisfactory solution." One of the alternatives was to use a tunnel constructed in rock below the former Burwood Colliery.
Herald readers pondering the bad news could, however, draw consolation from a report, on the same page, that said that most beaches in Britain had pollution levels far higher than any in the Newcastle area. Rio De Janeiro's famous beaches were also so badly hit by pollution that "…they can no longer be used for bathing and sun tanning." Bathers were warned that they risked catching hepatitis and skin ailments.
In July 1983, the newly formed Clean Oceans for Newcastle Committee wrote to the NSW Minister for Health, Laurie Brereton, expressing its concern about the pollution of Newcastle's beaches and asking "…for an assurance that steps will be taken to safeguard public health at city beaches." In August, the committee met with a representative of the HDWB, who admitted that the board had been shocked by the results of the daily testings of water quality at Newcastle beaches. In future, however, the board would only test samples twice a week in summer, and once a week in winter. This, the committee said, was inadequate.
During October, Dr Brian Williams convened a seminar entitled "Burwood Beach - Problems and Proposals" at Newcastle University. Various methods of measuring water quality and alternative ways of disposing of sewerage were discussed. It was noted that the HDWB was expected to decide on what was the most effective method of dealing with the problem by the end of the year. By mid December, it appeared that little progress had been made by the board, or by Newcastle City Council, and the Clean Oceans for Newcastle Committee had run out of patience. They decided to ask the NSW Ombudsman to investigate Newcastle City Council's lack of action on the beach pollution issue. Mrs June Ebrill, on behalf of the committee said "…we believe that we have established a case of negligence by the council due to its not having signs erected to indicate to beach goers whether or not the water was safe to swim in."
This comment underscored the poor relations which existed between council and the committee. The council, apparently, hoped that the problem would go away if everyone would keep quiet about it. "The health inspector and some other council officers attempted to obstruct and humiliate me. It was a very stressful time in my life," said Mrs Ebrill. There were, however, some individuals and groups who were supportive. Mark Richards and the Merewether Boardriders Club was one such group, while the university students published an excellent article on the issue in their newspaper, Opus. Dorothy and Harold Chesters, Audrey and John Monteath, Francis Sutton and Leo Maynard were some of the people who supported Mrs Ebrill during this time.
By the end of 1983 there was light at the end of the (sewerage) tunnel. By then, adverse publicity and public dissatisfaction forced the authorities to address the issue. The findings of the HDWB study were released and the public was invited to comment on the four preferred options ranging in cost from $13 million to $39 million. One option was to construct a tunnel to discharge the effluent 1,500 metres offshore. A second option was to upgrade the Burwood Beach Treatment Plant to provide partial treatment of sewerage.
In March 1984, the Herald reported that "…water samples taken from Bar Beach and Merewether revealed a faecal coniform count almost two times the recommended maximum level." Mrs Ebrill said that "…plastic objects and other refuse, including sanitary pads, could be seen washed up on the beach." Shortly after, about 100 people attended a public meeting, held by the Newcastle branch of the Institute of Engineers, to discuss the options for Burwood Beach sewerage disposal. The HDWB chief engineer assured the meeting that any option chosen by the board would give clean beaches 95% of the time.
Later that year "the HDWB approved the upgrading of the Burwood Beach waste water treatment works. This included construction of a new pumping station, a preliminary and secondary treatment plant and an extended ocean outfall." Most of this work came into operation in 1989 and the secondary treatment plant was completed in 1992.
Speaking about the issue in 2001, June Ebrill said while improvements had been made, untreated stormwater still discharges onto Bar Beach.
While the Burwood Beach works attracted most attention other treatment works in the area, at Belmont, Stockton and Boulder Bay, were also cause for concern especially after heavy rain when the pipes became overloaded with water and expelled the surcharge through vents. As late as February 1989 the Herald was reporting in pollution levels more than 10 times the recommended limit. Nat Jeffery, NBN weather man and one of the organisers of Newcastle Surfest, said "…we often see the tangible effects of poor filtration out in the water. You'd be surprised by what comes bobbing by when you're sitting out there on a board."
As sewage treatment plants were upgraded, the focus moved to other hazards. In 1989 Nat Jeffery said the primary concern now to surfers was "the amount of oils, grease and chemicals that were being poured into the sea. While human waste breaks down fairly quickly, oil and grease are difficult to filter out of sewage." A representative of the HDWB said the board was aware of the problem and had taken steps to more effectively filter oil and grease. It had initiated a public awareness problem in 1985 to educate people not to pour cooking oil down the sink, or motor oil down the drain. A trade waste disposal service was set up in 1985, which had reduced the amount of chemicals entering the system from industry.
Some people however didn't get the message, and while the problem has been alleviated, it still remains an issue. Part of the solution to pollution lies in educating school children to do the right thing. During the 1990s many schools ran their own environmental projects which ranged from creating bush gardens to measuring pollution levels in local creeks, lakes or oceans. One of the first involved was a Stockton Primary School class who, in 1990 "conducted a qualitative pollution survey of its nearby beach strip. The Department of Transport expressed interest in obtaining the result of the survey, to keep check on what was appearing on the coastal strip."
In October 1990 the Minister for Shipping "announced new dumping rules for recreational and commercial vessels which will result in drastic changes in the way ships dipose of their garbage." Heavy fines would be imposed on those found guilty of dumping prohibited materials such as plastics, synthetic ropes and fishing nets which "severely threatened the whole marine environment."
In the late 1980s there were various groups who were raising the issue of pollution on our beaches and in our oceans. One of these was Friends of the Earth. In Sydney they issued a leaflet in 1988 titled "If you go down to the beach today… You're in for a big surprise." And the surprise was not going to be pleasant!
While the state of our oceans and beaches had improved by 1994, much remained to be done. It was the surfers with an environmental conscience who now took up the challenge of cleaning up our beaches and oceans.
Afterword: In 1951 some Newcastle residents expressed grave concern about pollution on some of Newcastle's beaches. They were, however, referring to moral pollution! The Beach Liaison Committee of Newcastle council said that "during an inspection, the immoral conditions they had discovered, even in broad daylight, around the Dixon Park surf sheds was astounding." Ald E.A. Terry said " more vigorous police supervision of all Newcastle Beaches was needed to stop the undesirable behaviour of some people, particularly after dark." Inspector J. Hayes of Newcastle police said, "special detachments of plain clothed men have been detailed to patrol Newcastle beaches." From recent reports it appears that this type of behaviour, particularly after dark, persists on some Newcastle beaches to this day!
| << Previous |