The Globe. WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1877.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 908, 23 May 1877, Page 2

The Globe. WEDNESDAY, MAY 23, 1877.

Its another column Ave publish the "manifesto" of the Drainage Board, and we are sorry to say it is a most disappointing document. "With the majority of the propositions laid down we most cordially agree. We admit that is necessary " that the water and slops from houses be removed quickly," and " that the soil near the surface be not allowed to get permanently saturated." "We also agree that means must be provided for carrying away the water from the suburbs as well as from Christchurch. "We accept the premisses of the Board ,|but Ave decline, and we think the public "will decline, to accept their conclusions. Throughout this cleverly prepared document it is assumed (that if the water and slops from houses are to be removed quickly. and if the soil near the surface is not to be allowed to get permanently saturated, that Mr. Carruthers's scheme must be adopted. But it has been urged again and again that we

have no evidence before us that we have got the best possible plan for carrying out those very objects laid down as necessary by the Board. It is quite possible that many of the ratepayers may be deeply convinced of the necessity of underground drainage, but be far from satisfied that the scheme of the Board will effect that object, or that it is the cheapest and best that can be obtained. _ "We protest against the assumption of the Board, that if the public accept their premisses they must as a matter of course adopt Mr. Carruthcrs's plans. Apart from the fact that wo have no satisfactory evidence that the scheme will do what it professes to do, there are other objections to it quite sufficient to secure its rejection. We have no reliable data of its cost, and those who have some practical knowledge of the nature of the subsoil of the city and suburbs maintain that it will cost a very much larger sum than the Board estimate. Again, we are absolutely in the dark as to the intention of the Board on a most important matter — the final disposal of the sewerage. And yet the manner in which they proposed to deal with it has given rise to the most strenuous opposition. Is it to be carried to the estuary and thrown down there to poison the atmosphere ; or is it to be purified by some process or another before being finally parted with: or is it to be carried right to the sea ? On this point the "manifesto" is strangely silent. The document deals too much with general principles. But on these there is less diversity of opinion. All are agreed that an efficient system of drainage is required. The public say tliat the one proposed by Mr Carruthers is very expensive how expensive no one really knows; that it contemplates the introduction of the water-closet system in connection with the drains; that it proposes to throw the whole of the sewerage of the city upon the estuary; and that it is generally unsuited to our requirements. The answer the Board gives to these objections is in every sense unsatisfactory. In reply to the one as to the cost, all we are told is that the Act contemplated the the spending of £200,000, at least, on the drainage of the district. As to the introduction of the water-closet system, we are informed that the Board do not intend to introduce it. Then in the name of all that is reasonable we would ask, why stick tenaciously to Mr. Carruthers's plans ? If the closet system is to be abandoned their engineer's scheme might surely be modified, and much reduced in cost. Mr. Bray seems to think sso, and the ratepayers are justified in insisting that the best obtainable advice be secured before the work is begun. Competitive designs ought to be called for, and the whole question referred to a competent Board of Engineers. We may then probably find that Mr. Carruthers's is not the only, or the best, plan obtainable, or the least expensive. We trust the ratepayers during the next month will convince the Drainage Board, that they_ are as anxious as their representatives to secure an efficient system, but that they are not prepared to adopt the plan now before them, without more professional advice.