WATER AND DRAINAGE.

Gisborne Times, Volume VII, Issue 319, 21 January 1902, Page 3

WATER AND DRAINAGE.

(To the Editor of the Times.) Sir,—fii the correspondence which has taken place over water and drainage for Gisborne, it seern.s to have resolved itself into a question of Mestayer versus Lysnar, instead of discussing the different schemes of water and drainage on their true merits. Now, sir, I don’t claim to be an engineer, but merely a plain, practical, common-sense man, and it seems to me that Mr Mestayer in his drainage scheme is having a good try to spend as much money as he possibly can. Without going into details, he collects the sewerage into certain cesspits, or tanks, placed in different parts of the town, then builds a large Septic tank on the sand lulls near the Waikanae beach, into which through pneumatic pipes lie purnps the sewerage. After treatment in this tank or tanks it is rendered perfectly harmless, and is discharged into the sea. Now, sir, to take this sewerage from the different

receiving points (or tanks) to the place where it is proposed to treat the same, we are asked to provide the handsome sum of £16,750, including tank and outfall sewer. Then, sir, there is to he an annual cost of working (this already-expensive scheme) of over one thousand pounds. Now, sir, .£15,000 of this money and £BOO per year can be saved without in any way impairing Mr Meslayer’s scheme. Is not this a shameful waste ? Ought not the Borough Council to pause ere they involve us in such an enormous ami useless expenditure ? Sir, I am fullv persuaded of this,

that if the ratepayers of Gisborne really understood the Septic tank system of disposing of sewerage, they would rise as one mail and stop this shameful waste. Why, I ask, should we pay £00,00(1 for what we can get for £40,000 ? Is it not madness ? Would anyone act in this way in their own private business ? I am certain

they would not. Every business man desires to get the best value for his money. Mr Mestayer says in his report that “ sewerage contains within itself the elements of its own destruction." This, sir, is exactly what Mr

Lysnar says, so they botli agree on that, point. Now, why not treat the sewerage just, on the spot where it is collected ? Run the product (pure water) into the Waikanae and Taruheru without the needless expense of conveying to and treating same on the sandhills near tiie Waikanae beach. As regards water, I have until today accepted without much doubt the Waiiiirere scheme. Yesterday I examined for myself the flow of water, also the nature of the country on which it is proposed to build tiie dam and store tiie water, and I must confess I

have grave doubts as to there being either a sufficient quantity, or the possibility of storing behind a dam the water there is.—l am, etc., FRANCIS STAFFORD.

(To the Editor of the Times.) Sir,—l see by Mr Rees’s letter appearing in Saturday’s contemporary, that lie twits me witli ignorance and tries to hold me up to ridicule, because I am made to say in my letter published by you, “ the stars in their course fought against Cicero.’’ Now, sir, I spelt the name “Sisera," as you will find by reference to; my letter. I noticed the mistake on the morning of issue. Of course, it was a printer’s error, but it is such men as Mr Rees, who deter sensible small freeholders from expressing their opinion publicly. Surely he might have found some better object for his lance' —Cicero, his great ancestor, would have been ashamed of such conduct. Saturday’s Herald was crowded with letters, chiefly from Reverend nonratepayers ; they remind me of the gentry spoken of in Matt., 24. chap., and Ith verse. Surely the burgesses can manage their temporal affairs without so much clerical dictation. Yes, sir, we object to being led by the nose or talked down to in that manner. However, Wednesday will prove that we consider we are quite sufficiently rated at present.—l am, etc., W. THARRATT.