THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

Globe, Volume VIII, Issue 913, 29 May 1877, Page 3

THE DRAINAGE QUESTION.

the conference. Tuesday, Mat 29. A conference between the members of the Drainage Board and the members of the committee appointed at the recent meeting at Mr Charles Clark's rooms, was held this morning. The members of the Board present were the Chairman, Messrs Wright, Hobbs, Jones, Ross, Harman, and Hall. The committee comprised Messrs Ollivier, Stead, Nathan, Wood, E. B. Bishop, Hon. J. T. Peacock, and Drs. Nedwill and Frankish. Mr Ollivier, in opening the matter, said he thought there was some slight misappprehension. They had come there to hear the views of the Board, and to make any suggestions. The committee wished to know what the Board intended positively to do. He should like to make a remark upon the proceedings of the day before. It had been stated by one of the members that the opposition would have to abandon the chief points of their opposition. Now the opposition had never wishjd the Board to resign, but simply to see that an expensive and utterly unnecessary scheme of drainage was not entered into. They came there that day to see what were the concessions which the Board were—as he had been led to believe — prepared to make. So far as he could learn the Board were prepared to abandon the deep, or what was better known as, Mr Carruthers's scheme. What the committee wanted was, that the Board should submit a plan of surface drainage to a competent Board of Engineers. The -work, if approved of by them, could then be proceeded with at once. The committee was not in favor of competitive designs, but that a' Board of Advice should meet and decide upon a certain scheme, and when that scheme -was prepared it should be submitted to the ratepayers for say one month. The ratepayers were, he thought, prepared to say that they did not wish the Board to resign, but they strongly objected to the present scheme being carried out.

Mr Jones would like to ask the committee if they did not think it would be discourteous to Mr Carruthers, on the part of the Board, to throw over his scheme. It would be very much better to refer the scheme back to' him for modification. This would be much better than throwing Mr Carruthers's scheme right over. The committee were, he thought, asking too much to request the Bonrd to appoint another engineer without consulting Mr Carruthers.

Mr Peacock took it that it was the desire of the committee that the scheme should be modified and not the engineer changed, but at the same time he was glad to find that the scheme coidd be modified. Mr Harman agreed with Mr Jones in the remarks he had made.

Mr Ollivier said he wished distinctly to express that there was not the slightest wish on the part of the committee to cast any reflection on Mr Carruthers. But they said that the scheme was too costly and too . elaborate. They required a pledge from the Board that it would not adopt any system of sewerage that should be a deep sewer system. They wished to ascertain whether it was not possible to get a surface drainage scheme, with off-takes to carry the sewage away to the sea. If that was the intention of the Board they had no wish to interfere with the administrative work of the Board. If they could say to Mr Carruthers, " Can you modify your plans," they had no right to say anything. They would then be prepared, in case of Mr Carruthers refusing to go on with the modification of plans, to let the scheme be put into the hands of Mr Bell. The committee only wished to know the cost before the work was begun, and also to have an assurance that the water-closet excreta would be put into deep water.

In reply to the chairman, Mr Ollivier said that the committee required to know the cost of the work before entering upon it. Mr Wright said that Mr Ollivier had started with the idea that the Board intended to put the water-closet dejecta into the sewers. IVow this was never intended by the Board, and had been denied over and over again. Mr Hall differed from Mr Wright. The real fact was that Mr Carruthers had made the sewers to carry the water-closet dejecta, leaving the Board to decide whether they would put the water-closet dejecta into the sewers.

Mr Wright here quoted from Mr Carruthers's report, to prove what he said.

Mr Ollivier said that tlic intentions of the Board and the proposals of Mr Carruthers would not satisfy the ratepayers. They could only judge of the actions of the Board by what appeared before them. The published words of some of the members of the Board were to the effect that they intended to carry the water-closet dejecta into the sewers a few years hence. The Chairman said thev had stated very clearly what they intended to do, and the committee should not say that the Board were disingenuous in the statement made. The Board had said that they did not intend to put the water-closet dejecta into the sewers, and the (committee not doubt them. Hon. J. T. Peacock said it was utterly useless to discuss this matter. They were there that morning to object to the scheme of Mr Carruthers entirely. The public who had to pay for it objected most thoroughly to the expensive scheme of deep drainage which was proposed by Mr Carruthers. What they wanted was to ascertain if the Board were prepared to have another scheme put before them.

The Chairman said that some years back the objection to the scheme was that it did not look to the future. Now it appeared that the scheme was too permanent, and that the ratepayers required a scheme which would not be permanent. They were elected —at least he was—with the understanding that a permanent scheme was required. Dr. Frankish said that the opinion of a large majority of the ratepayers was that they had began at the wrong end. They objected to haying the opinion of only one man, however good Mr Carruthers might be. Of course it would be useless to expect that the side channels would carry ! away all the drainage. It would be necessary to have some deep sewers. The ratepayers desired to have any scheme which might be put before the Board first placed before a competent body of engineers, and they would not be satisfied with any one scheme, or a scheme for which the Board of Engineers was not jointly responsible. Mr Hobbs thought that Dr. Frankish had come more nearly to the proper solution of the question than any of the other speakers. As regarded the remarks made by Mr Ollivier as to what he (Mr Hobbs) had said at the meeting of the day before, he might say that those were his individual opinions. The committee, he thought, if their letter was to be taken as representing their opinions, was not treating the Board right. Did [they wish the Board, after being in office eighteen months, to give up their opinions in favor of theirs, which he did not think was the proper position to take up. What he thought the opposition should do was to abandon the position they had taken up as to surface drainage. This was an engineering question, and the Board should rather be asked to have another scheme prepared by Mr Bell or other engineers, and submit the two schemes for the approval of the ratepayers. He thought that the opposition could not ask the Board to recede from their position more than this. They had done the best they could in getting Mr Carruthers to make their plans for them, and he said this, that the morche studied the scheme the more he became impressed with the economy and thorough completeness of its details. But, while this was the case, he was prepared to givo way to the opinions of other gentlemen on the matter. Therefore, he should be quite willing to obtain a second scheme, for the purpose of comparison. But, while he said this, it must be understood that there must be a finality about the matter. If they obtained another scheme there must be a guarantee that it should end there. If not, it might go on for years, and the public funds would bo wasted in procuring schemes. The members of the Board had had this before them, and had felt, if they resigned, that an opposition might be got up ts the policy of their successors, and so it might go on. The two points that they had to discuss were, that a second scheme should be obtained, and that the hands of the engineers should not be tied beyond providing that no water-closet dejecta should go into the sewers.

Mr Stead said that the ratepayers had no wish that the Board should resign. They simply objected to the scheme of Mr Carruthers. The outfall drain, which proved part of Mr Carruthers's scheme, having been found to be useless, the scheme failed. Under these circumstances they had to begin denoro. Why then not refer the whole matter to the Board of Engineers proposed. If the Board of Engineers shewed that the surface drainage was not fsufficient to carry off the sewage of Christchurch, the ratepayers of course could say no more. But they wanted the opinion of the Board of Engineers on the subject. Let the Board reconsider the whole matter, as the outfall drain had now been found to be useless.

Mr Ollivier, in reply to Mr Harman, said that so far as he could gather, the opinion of the public was against the sewage going into the rivers. Except in time of floods, which could not be provided for, no water was to be carried into the rivers.

Mr Duncan would like the public to thoroughly understand that the Board never intended to put down sewers in every street, as laid down in the plan before them. It seemed to him that the Board and the committee were very nearly at one on many points. "Wherever the surface drainage would be sufficient to carc-y off the sewage of the town the Board had no wish to interfere.

Dr. Frankish thought that while there were some points of agreement between the Board and the committee, there was still a wide difference in others. What he wanted to see was, that any plans which might come before the Board should be submitted to a Board of Engineers as a Board of Advice before being adopted. He was not there to say that a system of surface drainage entirely should be carried out, but they wanted a system which would answer well at a less cost.

Mr Stead thought that the Board might under the present circumstances begin over again, as the outfall drain, which was an integral part of Mr Carruthers's scheme, was found to be very nearly if not quite useless. Mr Hobbs thought if they confined themselves to surface drainage, pure and simple, they would have to put a very heavy rate on the suburbs to pay for it. Mr Wright thought the difference between the Board and the committee was still very great on the question of underground drainage. If they wanted to send Mr Carruthers's plans to a Board of Advice they should not refer it to a lower but to a higher authority. Therefore, he thought it would be better to refer the scheme to an authority outside the colony, such as Mr Moriarty in Sydney or Mr Clarke in Melbourne. Any reference to a lesser authority would leave the whole question still open to discussion. In deference to the opinion of the ratepayers they might submit the scheme to the engineers he had mentioned, after first consulting Mr Carruthers on the subject. This was what he thought would be the wisest course. Mr Ross wished to shew them distinctly the position of the Board. By a majority of seVen to one they had stated that they were prepared to stand by the deep drainage scheme. He agreed with Mr Wright that it woidd be better to submit the question to a Board of Engineers outside the colony. Mr Ollivier said they did not appear to be making much progress. If the Board reiterated their opinion that they would proceed to carry out the system of deep drainage proposed by Mr Carruthers, then the committee could not come to any agreement. The Chairman said what the Board wanted to know was what the committee meant by " surface" drainage. Mr Ollivier said he distinctly objected to to give any tiling like a professional opinion. He was not an engineer. All that they said was that they objected to Mr Carruthers's plan. He had a thorough objection to the plan being referred to any authority outside New Zealand,

Mr Nathan did not think it would be advisable to go into a large scheme of drainage like that of Christchurch without first consulting the eminent engineers spoken of by Mr Wright. With an amended plan from Mr Carruthers or some other engineer, they might go to Mr Clarke or Mr Moriarty and obtain an opinion upon them. Mr Ollivier said as ratepayers they woiild agree to a system of surface drainage in conjunction with such underground drainage as might be necessary to carry off the sewage, and might be recommended by the Board of Engineers. Mr Harman thought they had now arrived at a tolerable understanding. The ratepayers and the committee would, he felt sure, be satisfied after the scheme had been submitted to authorities such as those spoken of by Mr WrightMr Hall would not feel disposed to agree to anything less than the entire abandonment of the plan submitted by Mr Carruthers. They were going to spend a large amount of money in the drainage of the city and suburbs, and the outlying and rural districts, though having to contribute towards the cost, received little or no benefit.

After some desultory conversation, Mr Ollivier read over a document embodying the views of the committee. He said he thought if the Board would accept that as a suggestion from they might come to a satisfactory conclusion. The suggestions were as follow :—" That this committee is of opinion that in any scheme of drainage to be suggested it should be a primary instruction that no excreta shall be removed by means of underground sewers. That no portion of the excreta shall be allowed to be placed in the Estuary. That before any scheme shall be adopted by the Board it shall be accompanied by an estimate of its cost. That this committee in making these suggestions is anxious to add that it desires to see a system of drainage carried into effect which shall drain as large an area as possible by gravitation, avoiding as far as possible the construction of pumping stations, only when absolutely necessary, connected witli a scheme of permanent underground drainage. And that after referring the plan for amendment to Mr Carruthers or to a local Board of Engineers, the committee recommends that the Board shall invite Mr Clarke or some other eminent engineer, to visit Canterbury and report upon such amended scheme. —On behalf of the Committee, John Ollivier, Chairman." In reply to a question as to whether the committee could guarantee that no further opposition should be made, Mr Stead said he did not see how they could guarantee that they represented every section of the ratepayers, but he believed that they represented the views of a very large majority. Dr Erankish desired to state that if the Board granted what the committee desired he for one would not be found in opposition against the Drainage Board. Mr Duncan did not think they coiild ask the committee to guarantee that there would be no further opposition. Some further discussion ensued.

Dr Frankish stated that what they meant by " surface" drainage was that as large an area of the district as possible should be drained by gravitation. On the suggestion of Mr Peacock it was resolved to add a clause defining surface drainage, to be what Dr Frankish had put it. Mr Ollivier said he trusted the Board would accept the propositions laid before it, and that this would be the final scene between the Board and the committee. They pinned their faith to the memorandum he had read, and hoped that the Board would accept it. If they did so the opposition, so far as he was concerned, would cease. The committee then retired after thanking the Board for the courtesy which had been extended to them, and the patient hearing accorded to their opinions. The Board then proceeded to discuss the suggestions. Mr Hobbs moved—" That the Board adopt the suggestions contained in the suggestions submitted to the Board as the result of the conference between the Board and the committee." Mr Jones seconded the motion, which was agreed to. THE OUTFALL DRAIN. Mr Wright moved—" That owing to the faulty construction of the outfall drain the Board is of opinion that it should be abandoned as a portion of the permanent system of drainage for Christchurch, and request Mr Carruthers to modify his plan so far as to construct a main outlet at the lowest practicable level on the same line with the view of enlarging the area to be drained by gravitation." Mr Harman seconded the motion, which was agi'eed to. On the motion of Mr Harman it was resolved —" That the Resident Engineer to the Board be requested to proceed to Wellington to confer with Mr Carruthers, and for the purpose of laying a report before the Board with as little delay as possible." The Board adjourned at 1.30 p.m. till Monday week.