The Globe. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 817, 3 February 1877, Page 2

The Globe. SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1877.

When the appointment of Consulting Engineer to the Drainage Board was made, it was naturally thought that the highest professional talent procurable was secured by the retention of the services, in that capacity, of the Engineer-in-Chief for the colony, Mr Carruthers. The equivalent for the work expected from that gentleman was set at a high figure, £SOO per annum standing salary, besides a commission upon the £150,000 or more, that the drainage scheme was estimated to cost, which commission would at least double the salary in question. We must confess that the public has been considerably disappointed by the manner in which their expectations have been realised. After a delay of nearly a year, the drainage scheme has at last been brought to light, and the Board, after listening to its being hurriedly read aloud, and asking a number of questions, have adopted it without further thought or comment. What led it to take that extraordinary step, it is hard to understand. So far as the professional details of Mr Carruthers’ scheme are concerned, they are of the most elementary character, and introduce no novelty whatever. Given a low-lying piece of country, with a scarcely sufficient fall to the adjoining ocean, any engineer would of course at the outset conceive artificial means, such as has been described in Mr Carruthers’ report, of procuring necessary gradients and of flushing drains. Elementary text-books all contain information leading to the mode of dealing with such cases, and that has evidently been followed out by Mr Carruthers. It is probably the only way in which, under existing circumstances, it was possible for him to treat the details of the works, especially so when the intention was to finally discharge the sewage into the estuary. The objection which we take, and which, we have no doubt, will be clamorously urged against Mr Carruthers’ proposals is, that any of four suggestions which he throws out to dispose of the sewage, must have the effect of converting the neighbourhood of the Heathcote’s mouth into a gigantic cesspool. Ac the present moment, most people are aware what a horrible pest and nuisance the outfall drain is. When the wind blows from seaward, the stench for miles around is sometimes unbearable. What will the case be, when the whole of the sewage from Christchurch city and the suburbs, discharge in the same locality. The volume of pestilent matter will then be something like twenty times greater than it is now. Mr Carruthers, we find, is not at all positive himself as to what the result of this discharge will be, yet it is the very point upon which the public must be thoroughly satisfied before the work progresses. Everything in the report which bears upon the final disposal of the sewage, is thoroughly unsatisfactory. While even giving out those four proposals for the ultimate dealing of the sewage, Mr Carruthers hesitates. And it is highly suggestive, that Mr E. G. Wright, the only member of the Board who is not a layman, and under whose auspices the appointment of Mr Carruthere was mainly made, threw out a hint, at the last meeting of the Board, that if any of those four proposals were not found satisfactory, then another £IOO,OOO could be spent to convey the sewage direct into the ocean. This, of course, tends to show that considerable doubt axists as to the feasibility of the scheme.

It is notorious that a scheme to drain Wellington, initiated by Mr, Carmthers, and in which he proposed to discharge the sewage into the harbour, was submitted to a committee of engineers, who one and all condemned it to the utmost, and it was consequently laid aside. It would certainly seem as if Mr. Carruthers’ notions of the powers of pollution possessed by sewage were very limited indeed. We understand that a public meeting of the ratepayers will shortly be called to pass an opinion upon the proposals in question. The Heathcote Road Board also, we believe, intend taking the matter in hand, and having a special meeting with a view of considering how, in the opinion of the people resident East of Christchurch, those proposals will affect them. There is no wonder that public opinion should thus be stirred. It is quite true that it may require a professional man to judge of another professional man. But, in the present case, we have an engineer, high in his profession, whose prognostications as to whether a scheme he brings before the public is likely to turn to good or evil, are absolutely undefined. The interests at stake are far too great to be dealt with in so trifling a manner. It is obvious that if the, say, £150,000 or £200,000, which the drainage scheme will cost, are wasted to no purpose of utility, and perhaps in a most harmful manner, it will be too late to think of procuring, a second time, the means towards promoting a second attempt. We certainly cannot afford to play at engineering, especially when the health and comfort of the people are at stake.