DRAINAGE BOARD.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 906, 21 May 1877, Page 2

DRAINAGE BOARD.

Monday, Mat 21

The Board held its usual meeting at 10.30 a.m. Present—Messrs Tailored (Chairman), Hobbs, Hall, Duncan, Wright, Jones and Boss.

SALISBURY STREET DRAIN,

Mr Hanmer, as solicitor for Mr Poore, waited on the Board to ask for permission to build over the drain on section 162 Salisbury street. His client was willing to lay down 18in pipes by which no inconvenience would arise from the building as proposed. After some discussion, and explanation from Mr Hanmer, it was resolved that the matter should be looked into at once and an answer given. engineers’ report

Tire engineer’s report was read. Mr Wright asked how many barrels of bad cement had been found ?

Mr Bell said that the shipment in which the faulty casks were found was that by the Carnatic which had been damaged by seawater. Mr Turner had signed an obligation to replace any cement which might be objected to. About 100 barrels had been rejected. On the next clause,

Mr Jones asked whether it would not be better to have the drain at the outfall deepened. The present state of it was very imperfect, and Mr Carruthers had said it was a great bugbear in the way of his carrying out his scheme. If this work was a bad one, Mr Bray, who was the consulting engineer, together with the person who carried out the work, should bear the onus of the bad work. Mr Duncan could hardly understand the change that appeared to have come over the spirit of Mr Jones’s dream. He (Mr Duncan) only too well recollected the pressing manner in which Mr Jones urged the paying over of (lie TIB,OOO, the cost of the drain to the City Council. Perhaps he was afraid the Board would Jind out that the drain was a bad job.

With reference to the clause as to the Riccarton drains, a letter was read from Mr McDowall, pointing out that the land and the road leading to the Middleton railway station were ilooded.

After some conversation, it was decided that the engineer carry out the drain to Miss Lohso’s as soon as possible, which would relieve Mr McDowell's land and the road. In reference to the extension of the outfall drain, Mr Bell stated that he had not carried out the work, as he thought it probable some other steps might be taken to have a lock or something else there. He had not yet made any estimate of the cost, nor had the work been commenced. If the Board desired, however, ho would put down a few chains of temporary work. The Board decided that Mr Bell be instructed to put down a few chains as a temporary work. The report as a whole was approved. RIVER CLEARING.

A letter was read from Mr Hall, calling attention to the necessity which existed for clearing the river Wairarapa. The matter was referred to the engineer. A letter was read from the Spreydon Road Board, calling attention to the bad state of the River Heathcote, from watercress, &c. The matter was referred to the engineer. THE FERRY ROAD.

A letter was read from the Heathcote Road Board, calling attention to the fact that the works in connection with the Ferry road sewer had the effect of diverting the traffic all on the one side, and asking the Board to provide some remedy. A letter was also read, signed by a number of residents on the Ferry road, asking that the Board would not cut up the Ferry road for the drain purposes during the winter months. It was resolved to reply that proper provision should be made for the traffic while the works are in progress, but that there was no probability that the works would be carried out that winter. RATING POWERS OP EOARD. An opinion was read from Messrs Garrick and Cowlishaw, stating that it would be necessary for the Board to make out its own valuation list and rate roll. After a very lengthy discussion, the matter was passed over. PERRY ROAD DRAIN. A telegram was received from a contractor in Wellington, offering to construct the Ferry road sewer.

It was decided to reply by telegram that the work had been withdrawn from tender for the present. As regarded the only other tender received, the chairman was requested to forward th same to the tenderer.

THE LATE MEETINGS IN THE DISTRICT.

A letter was read from Mr John Ollivier, forwarding the resolutions passed at the various meetings throughout the district. The letter went on to say that in view of this expression of public opinion, so decidedly hostile to Mr Carruthers’s scheme, the Board would see their way clear to have some scheme which would be more effective and less expensive. Mr Hall said that he desired to have the opportunity of speaking, and therefore begged to move “ That the letter be taken into consideration.” He said he had attended a public meeting in the Oddfellows’ Hall. He had been told that there was much rabid misstatements at such meetings, but he came away with a very different opinion. The meeting w-as a most orderly one, and the various speakers gave a very fair resume of the proceedings of the Board. It was true that in some cases a portion of the matter was was told and the balance suppressed. But while this was so Messrs Ollivier and Williams whenever the Board was misrepresented took every opportunity to put the Board right with the public. [Mr Wright—Yes ; except their own statements.] Well, he (Mr Hall) had come away from that meeting impressed with the fact that nine-tenths of the ratepayers were opposed to the scheme. There were, he thought, two parties of oppositionists —one which was opposed to the scheme as one which was too expensive and too large for the district at present, and the other who were opposed to it altogether. He had, therefore, come to the conclusion that it would be better to leave Mr Carruthers’ scheme over for some months, and in the meanwhile to invite competitive designs. He would therefore move—

That Mr Carruthers’s drainage scheme be left in abeyance for about eight months, in the meantime competitive schemes be invited in England, the Australian Colonies, and New Zealand for the whole of the drainage area. That a sum of £—- be offered for the one selected ; the cost of the drainage works not to exceed £ —. That proper maps be lithographed, showing levels, nature of country, soil, and all other matters that are necessary for engineers in preparing a scheme, and forwarded to the different countries. When such schemes are received that they bo left open to the ratepayers for one mouth before the Board proceeds to decide on them.

He was of opinion that it would be a good thing to let the scheme be a month before the public for criticism, because many heads would be able to discover the weak points in it. He might say that his opinion of the feeling of the ratepayers at the late meeting was that they did not wish the Board to resign. Their feeling seemed to be that if they gave up this scheme and put (he whole matter up to competition, the ratepayers had sufficient confidence in them not to wish them to resign their seats.

Mr Duncan, with a view to enable the discussion to go on, would second the motion pro forma.

Mr Harman asked whether any written instructions were given to Mr Carruthers when he was instructed to prepare a plan for the drainage of Christchurch ? Mr Hobbs said he thought the whole matter was left to Mr Carruthers to decide what system of drainage would be most applicable to the requirements of the place, either underground, surface or otherwise. Mr Boss said he would occupy the tune of the Board with a few remarks. As regarded Mr Hall’s resolution, he remembered that the question of referring the plans to competitive examination had been rejected by a majority. He was quite prepared to repeat his vote on the subject again. They had been elected there to carry out certain functions. If they did not do so properly it was quite time the public got some other set of men. He himself did not feel competent to judge of the merits of the plans sent in, nor could the public. The latter might give some information on the general scheme but not on the enmueeriniz details. 8

Mr Ross enquired whether it would not be right to put Mr Carruthers’s scheme on one side altogether ? Mr Hall —Ho. Let it remain in abeyance. Mr Harman said it had always been a matter of difficulty to him to discover what were the duties of the Board. In the Act the definition was very general. The conferences which had been held previous to the establishment of the Drainage Board had led him to believe that the ratepayers required the city to be sewered. Therefore when Mr Carrauthcrs brought his scheme before them he thought that the sewerage of the city would be just what the ratepayers wanted. He might say as one that if tire ratepayers did not want deep sewers he was prepared to see then abandoned, but he might say that his opinion was that the city could not be drained properly without sewers laid at such gradients as their engineers might deem necessary to to carry the sewage the Board undertook to send into them. He for one, and he believed every member of the Board, was opposed to the sending of night soil into the sewers, and indeed all their work was tending in a directly opposite direction. All that they intended the sewers to carry was the bouse' slops and ordinary street drainage. If this could be obtained by means of gravitation, without the expense of pumping stations it might be carried out, and Mr Carruthers might be asked whether such could be done. He could not agree to leaving their engineers, who had a thorough knowledge of the whole matter, and going to fresh ones.

Mr Jones said when the plans were before tire Board he had asked that a postponement of the acceptance of the plans should be made. What he thought now was that a modified plan might be evolved from Mr Carruthers’ plan, which could be carried out at far less expense and perhaps as efficiently. It might be that the opposition arose from the fact that many engineers were jealous of Mr Carruthers being Engineer-in-Chief and a.lso Consulting Engineer to that Board. H tins public were made aware that the Eoard would adopt a modification of Mr Carruthcrs’s plan a great deal of the opposition would cease. The public had fo choose between open ditches and brick sewers, where necessary, and lie thought the latter would be far more healthy. He hoped the Board woidd not’ throw aside Mr Carruthers’ plan, as he felt that if it could he shown that Waltham, Adding!on, and St. Albans would be drained by side channels, the public would accept a modification of the plan. They must recollect that some of the members of the City Council had opposed the side-channelling being carried out. But what had been the result ? Why, that by the carrying out of the side channelling the city had'beep rendered as healthy as

Brighton. He trusted that moderate counsels would prevail, and that they should be enabled to put down side channels, with brick sewers, wherever it was necessary to carry the house slops and storm water. lie fluent speakers who were on the opposition side held up increased taxation as a red rag against the Drainage Board, but u they showed them that they wore prepared to adopt a modified portion of Mr Carruthcrs scheme at a moderate cost the ratepayers would renew their confidence in them, He would not vote for doing away with Mr Oarruth era’ scheme. Of course, it he stated that the modified plan could not be carried out, then they would have to get some other, iiie Drainage Board was always amenable to reason and he thought that if they shewed that they intended to drain the outlying districts and the city at a reasonable cost they would hear no more of opposition. Mr Duncan said that there had been one or two private conferences which had given dire offence to several persons. He desired to travel over the ground he had done there. ]N T ow what he wanted to say was this —that they should be prepared to go on with the scheme they thought the best, or else take some other. He had no cause of quarrel with the speakers at the public They had a perfect right to express their opinions. But he desired the public to be aware of one fact. It was this. The speakers had said that Parliament never contemplated their going into so large a scheme of drainage. Now, when the Bill was first before the Board it was thought that £250,000 would be required to drain the district, but the Board felt that with a Is rate £200,000 would be enough. As regarded the charge of having no definite plan, the Board could with justice be twitted with this if they said to the ratepayers we will sweep away this plan, give us some other. As to having no estimates, he wished to point out that Mr Bell had made out estimates, and by many of the ratepayers Mr Bell was considered as good an engineer as Mr Carruthers, so that it could not be said that they had no estimates. As regarded the sewers, no one on that Board ever intended to put water closet excreta into the sewers. But there was no doubt about this that the city would double its population at least in ten years, and then the City Council would hare to face the question of providing a water supply. When this was provided the sewers would be ready to receive the water-closet excreta. He could not consent to abandon Mr Carruthers’s plans in favor of Mr Hall’s wish, because it simply landed them in the same position that they were now in. If they did this they would have the same agitation over again, and he would far rather resign at once than abandon a scheme which he thought was the best one they could got. The ratepayers seemed to wish them to resign, and perhaps it would be the best way. He for one wished to see a definite system of drainage laid down and carried out consistently, and would not be a party to patching in any way. He therefore thought it better to hold to Mr Carruthcrs’ plan.

Mr Wright said that he could hardly trust himself to speak with moderation, on this matter as he had been made the subject of so much personal abuse. If the speeches at the public meetings had been a fair exposition of fact, they might feel bound to take notice of it. But the fact was that ex parte statement s not altogether truthful had been made. Let them look at the statement of Dr Turnbull, that the Board was not formed to drain the city at the expense of the rural districts. Now the fact was, that the city and suburbs were drained at the expense of the city. The rural districts were receiving far more benefit from the operations of the Drainage Board than they were contributing. Then Mr Wynn Williams stated that he was surprised to see the members of the Board allowing him to influence their decisions, and stating that something was behind. There was something behind, and'that was a deep conviction growing every day that Christchurch could not be efficiently drained except by deep sewers. He thought‘that Mr Wynn Williams’s statements were° characterised by a little envy, malice, and all uncharitableness. Before taking a seat on that Board he had made up his mind not either directly or indirectly to take any part in the contract for the Christchurch drainage works. [Hear, hear.] He therefore stood there perfectly tree and independent. He quite agreed with IVEr Duncan s remarks that it would be wrong at this late period to abandon Mr Carruthers 1 scheme, because then they would really be without a definite system. It would be much better for them either to carry out the scheme they had taken in _ hand, or resign at once, and wash their hands of it. He did not mean to say that they need carry out the whole scheme at once. It would only be necessary for them to take the absolutely necessary portion of the work at once, and follow it up with the remainder of the scheme as necessity demanded. It was all very well for a few gentlemen who could surround themselves with a plantation, and thus escape the malaria to which their poorer neighbours were subject, to oppose the scheme. There was a large class to whom it was a matter of life and death who had no means of making their voice heard he referred to the wives and children of the working men. Ho trusted the Board would reject Mr Hall’s motion. Mr Hobbs said it was very difficult to control his temper, the more so as ho had been very much abused. Some of the leading ratepayers had however come to him and fold that he should take no notice of the abuse heaped upon him. In fact it was said that it was a compliment to be abused by Mr Wynn Williams. [Mr Hobbs then quoted from a speech made by him on February sth.] He had quoted this in answer to Mr Hall’s remarks as to competitive designs. He (Mr Hobbs) at first was of opinion that this would be a good thing. But when lie came to look into the matter he felt that, after giving the engineer every information and having confidence in his skill, they should be satisfied with him. Besides this, it was now too late to recede. The delay necessary for the obtaining of competitive designs was fraught with very great danger to the lives and health of the people, and therefore ho could not defer to the opinions of other people. The Responsibility was too great for him to assume. He noticed that two of the members of the Conference, Messrs Fisher and Gapes, had taken upon themselves to say that that Conference never contemplated a scheme of drainage for the city and suburbs. Well, if thev did not meet to consider the best means of draining the city and suburbs, the meeting was a farce. They were present at the meeting, heard the bill read giving power to break up streets and borrow money to the extent of a quarter of a million,and if this were not intended, to carry out |a drainage scheme, he did nob

know what it meant. He was quite in accord with Mr Wright when he said he could not pay that respect to the expression of the people that he should have done if the statements had been made fairly and not exparte. The greater part of the British public were easily led by assertions rather than argument, and this the experienced tacticians who led the opposition knew very well. They therefore reiterated assertions, and the public believed them. He (Mr Hobbs) had carefully gone through the whole of the speeches made to see whether the components of the speeches were of that deep read, thoughtful character entitling them to his respect. He must say that he was unable to find anything which entitled the arguments adduced to any weight for him. The fact was that the only attempt at argument had been made by Mr Wyn Williams as regarded the dry system. _ But the whole course of Mr Williams’ arguments seemed to him to show that he had taken advantage of his legal training, and having no case abused the other side. If they set the example of abandoning this plan they might be asked to do so again and again, and they would have no continuity of action at all. The only professional opinion given yet was that by Mr Bray, which was of course entitled to every respect. He had however asked Mr Bell, as their engineer, to make some remarks upon Mr Bray’s report. He would, with the permission of the Board, ask leave for Bell to read his remarks.

Mr Bell said that some of Mr Bray’s conclusions were erroneous, mainly from a misconception arising from the ambiguity of the plan, it being very hastily lithographed, and therefore coidd not convey all the information which Sir Bray might require. The other points were, he thought, merely differences of opinion between Mr Bray and Mr Carruthers. He would now read the remarks made by him upon Mr Bray’s report. [Read.] Mr Hobbs then continued to say that they had an explanation of the report of Mr Bray from their engineer. It simply amounted (o this, that they had to decide between Mr Bray’s opinion that fiat drainage was better than Mr Carruthers’ deep drainage. Well, as a member of that Board, he most decidedly took the plan recommended by Mr Carruthers to be the best. Then they came to the opinions of another profession, viz., that of the medical profession. Now they seemed to pre-suppose that the sewers would be like those of some thirty years ago, put down hermetically scaled, and not provided with means for ventilation and flushing. Now this was not the case, as the engineers of this day were far ahead of the ideas of some years back, as there was a conflict of opinion, he had taken the trouble to read up the best authorities on the subject —viz., “ Barks on Hygenia,” Ac., and they confirmed the opinion he had formed, that so long as the sewers were well ventilated and flushed no nuisance could take place. He had therefore no hesitation in saying that until the medical gentlemen put before them some authority as opposed to this lie should still hold to his opinion. As Mr Wright had said, the opposition to the Board had been characterised by an absence of truth and a misrepresentation of the intentions of the Board. He therefore did not take that notice of the results of these meetings that he should otherwise have done. He had been accused of saying that he would defy the ratepayers, and live the opposil ion down. He desired most distinctly and positively to deny this. As regarded the disposal of the excreta he was in favor of the dry system. He should oppose to the uttermost the flushing of water-closet dejecta in the sewers until they had a system of water supply for household purposes laid on to the houses. What he wanted to see done was that the Board put before the ratepayers their views in the form of a manifesto. Let them stand or fall upon this, and if the ratepayers were not satisfied after the publication of this, then it would be a graceful act on the part of the Board to resign. He could not for one moment accept the surface drainage as opposed to sewerage, because it would be merely a temporary expedient, and he objected to temporary expedients being adopted in these matters. He felt that the scheme now proposed would be very much better than to have one which would at the best be a mere temporary expedient. The plan proposed by Mr Carruthers was one which would, he believed, give them a system of drainage at once effective, considering that it was to last for all time, and which would be comparatively reasonable in cost.

Mr Harman said there was one point in Mr Hobbs’ speecli to which he desired to refer, as he thought he had made an error. That was when referring to Mr Bray’s proposal as to surface drainage. Now it was very evident from Mr Bray’s report that he contemplated sewers of some kind. He had mentioned this because it was only fair to Mr Bray that the full intention of his scheme should be made clear.

Mr Hobbs said that when lie spoke of surface drainage he meant that Mr Bray’s system as opposed to that of Mr Carruthers’, was high level sewers as against low level sewers. That was his meaning when he referred to surface drainage. The Board adjourned at this stage for half-an-hour.

After some discussion Mr Hall’s motion was put, he alone Toting for it. It was then resolved —“ That the consideration of Mr Gilmer’s letter be deferred for the present.” . [Left sitting.]